!i!l'!!ii!i:!!!ni!!!!i!!ll 


FIFTY     YEARS 
OF    E li RO P E  " 

CHARLES  DOWNER  IIAZEN 


niiJiii 


below 


c  NORiV 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


EUROPE   SINCE  1815 

THE     FRENCH     REVOLUTION     AND 
NAPOLEON 

ALSACE-LORRAINE      UNDER      GER- 
MAN  RULE 

MODERN    EUROPEAN   HISTORY 


HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 
Publishers  New  York 


*^ 


"A' 


FIFTY  YEARS  OF 
EUROPE 


1870-1919 


BY 


CHARLES   DOWNER   HAZEN 

ProiesBor  of  History  in  Columbia  University 


«^^^ 


NEW   YORK 

HENRY   HOLT   AND    COMPANY 

1919 


01  <1 


Copyright,  ipig 

BY 

HENRY   HOLT  AND  COMPANY 


DODPN     ro.     PRfSg 


3  35 

C6  jO'  3 
PREFACE 

The  fifty  years  that  have  elapsed   since  the  Franco- 
Prussian  War  possess  a  unity  that  is  quite  exceptional 
among  the  so-called  "periods"  of  history.     They  con- 
stitute a  period  of  German  ascendancy  in  Europe,  an 
ascendancy  acquired  by  force,  maintained  by  force,  and 
dedicated  to  the  perpetuation  and  the  extension  of  the 
rule  of  force— that  is,  to  the  great  principle  that  might 
makes   right.     Within   that   era   are   included    the    rise 
and  the  fall  of  the  German  Empire,  whose  history  was 
summarized  in  a  lapidary  phrase  pronounced  by  Presi- 
dent Poincare  at  the  opening  of  the  Conference  of  Paris: 
•'  It  was  born  in  injustice ;  it  has  ended  in  opprobrium." 
For  the  convenience  of  those  who  may  wish  to  review 
this  period  I  have  brought  together  those  chapters  of 
my  Modern  European  History  which  bear  upon  it,  mak- 
ing, however,  numerous  changes  in  the  narrative,  con- 
densing here,   amplifying   there,   transforming  and   re- 
arranging wherever  it  has  seemed  advantageous. 

To  complete  the  story  I  have  added  a  chapter  on  the 
Great  War,  the  closing  pages  of  which  were  written  on 
the  day  the  armistice  was  accepted  and  which  therefore 
represent  only  the  incomplete  knowledge  and  the  hur- 
ried impressions  of  a  mighty  moment  in  history.  How- 
ever, for  that  very  reason,  they  may  have  a  certain  value, 
at  least  as  a  contemporary  document. 

Charles  Downer  Hazen. 

Columbia  University, 
April  10,  1919. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 

I.    The  Triumph  of  Nationalism  in  Italy 
AND  Germany 


11.    The  Franco-Prussian  War     . 

III.  The   German    Empire 

IV.  France  Under  the  Third  Republic 
V.    The  Kingdom  of  Italy  Since  1870 

VI.    Austria-Hungary 
VII.    Great  Britain  and  Ireland     . 
VIII.    The  British  Empire  . 
IX.    The  Partition  of  Africa 
X.    The  Small  States  of  Europe 
XI.    The  Disruption  of  the  Ottoman  Em- 
pire AND  THE   Rise  of  the   Balkan 
States        

XII.  Russia  to  the  War  with  Japan  . 

XIII.  The  Far  East 

XIV.  Russia  Since  the  War  with  Japan 
XV.  The  Balkan  Wars  of  1912  and  1913   . 

XVI.    The  World  War 


PAGE 

I 

23 

33 
65 
96 
106 
121 
166 
191 
202 


226 
246 
264 
283 
290 
316 


MAPS 

Europe  in    1912 Frontispiece 

The  Unification  of  Italy 10 

The  German  Empire,  1914 58 

Distribution  of  Races  in  Austria-Hungary     .        .108 

Africa,  1910 10 

Asia  in  1914 280 

The   Balkan   States  x\ccording  to  the  Treaty   of 

Bucharest 312 

Colonial  Possessions  of  the  European  Powers  in 

1910 318 

Western  Front,  Farthest  German  Advance,  1914  .     337 

Eastern  Front 377 

Italian  Front 3^6 

The  "  Middle  Europe  "  Scheme       .        .        .        .388 
Russia  in  19 18,  after  the  Treaty  of  Brest-Litovsk     393 
Western  Front,  Battle  Line,  March  21  and  Novem- 
ber II,  1918 405 


FIFTY   YEARS    OF    EUROPE 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  TRIUMPH  OF  NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY 
AND  GERMANY 

The  year  1870  will  long  remain  memorable  in  the 
annals  of  Europe.  For  in  that  year  occurred  a  great 
and  decisive  war  whose  outcome  was  destined  to  exercise 
a  large  and  profound  influence  upon  the  history  of  the 
subsequent  period;  whose  consequences  were  to  prove 
pervasive,  far-reaching  and  unhappy,  just  as  the  four 
terrible  years  through  which  the  world  has  recently 
passed  will  inevitably  determine  the  future  of  the  world 
for  many  decades  to  come.  There  was  a  certain  tragic 
unity  to  that  intervening  period  between  the  Franco- 
Prussian  War  and  the  World  War,  the  shadow  of  the 
former,  the  dread  of  the  latter  hovering  over  the  minds 
of  men,  full  of  menace,  inspiring  a  recurrent  sense  of 
uneasiness  and  alarm.  All  the  various  streams  of  ac- 
tivity, all  the  different  movements,  national  and  inter- 
national, social  and  economic,  intellectual  and  spiritual, 
all  the  complex  and  diverse  phenomena  of  the  life  of 
Europe  during  that  crowded  half-century  took  their 
form  and  color  largely  from  the  memory  of  war,  the 
fear  of  war,  the  preparation  for  war.     A  period  like 


a  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

that  is  surely  worth  studying.  Indeed  only  if  men  acquire 
or  possess  a  just  understanding  of  it,  only  if  they  retain 
a  vivid  sense  of  its  lessons  and  its  warnings,  will  they 
be  able  to  avert  a  repetition  of  its  horrors,  only  thus 
will  they  have  the  aid  of  either  chart  or  compass  on 
their  voyage  into  the  future. 

But  apart  from  this  general  feeling  of  insecurity  and 
apprehension,  inspired  by  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  that 
war  had  several  immediate  and  specific  consequences 
which  must  inevitably  render  the  year  1870  notable  in 
the  history  of  modern  times  and  which  furnish  a  proper 
starting-point  for  this  narrative.  The  war  of  1870 
completed  the  unification  of  Germany  and  created  the 
German  Empire.  It  completed,  also,  the  unification  of 
Italy,  by  giving  to  the  kingdom,  as  its  capital,  the  in- 
comparable city  of  Rome.  It  overthrew  the  Second 
Empire  in  France  and  produced  the  Third  Republic.  It 
robbed  France  of  Alsace-Lorraine  for  the  benefit  of 
Germany  and  thus  embedded  militarism  in  the  life  of 
Europe. 

Of  course,  adequately  to  understand  events  of  such 
moment  we  would  be  obliged  to  review  the  period  before 
1870,  for  the  founding  of  the  German  Empire,  of  the 
Italian  Kingdom,  and  of  the  French  Republic  was  not 
something  hastily  improvised  in  that  year  as  a  result 
of  the  war.  Each  of  these  achievements  had  a  long 
history  behind  it;  each  was  the  product  of  a  long  pro- 
cess of  evolution.  The  year  1870  was  only  a  year  of 
culmination  and  fruition,  the  end  of  one  period,  the 
beginning  of  another. 

From  such  a  review  as  would  satisfactorily  explain 
the  rise  of  modern  Italy  and  Germany,  their  achievement 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY.      3 

of  nationality  after  centuries  of  disunion,  we  are  pre- 
cluded here.  Yet  a  slight  sketch  of  the  history  of  this 
remarkable  transformation  may  be  of  value  and,  indeed, 
is  necessary  if  we  would  have  the  background  essential 
for  the  proper  appreciation  of  the  later  period. 


Italy 

A  century  ago  Italy  was  not  a  body  politic;  it  was 
only  a  geographical  expression.  There  was  no  Italian 
nation,  but  there  existed  within  the  peninsula  ten  small 
and  entirely  separate  states,  among  which  the  most  im- 
portant were  the  Kingdom  of  Piedmont  or  Sardinia,  the 
Grand-Duchy  of  Tuscany,  the  Papal  States,  the  King- 
dom of  Naples  and  the  two  rich  provinces  in  the  north, 
Lombardy  and  Venetia,  which  belonged  to  Austria. 
There  was  no  form  of  political  union  among  these  states, 
not  even  that  of  a  loose  confederation,  as  in  the  case  of 
Germany.  Consequently,  there  was  no  Italian  flag,  no 
Italian  reigning  house,  no  Italian  citizenship,  no  Italian 
army.  Out  of  this  jumble  of  petty,  independent  states 
arose,  in  the  great  decade  between  1859  and  1870,  the 
present  unified  Kingdom  of  Italy. 

All  through  the  nineteenth  century  there  were  those 
who  felt  that  these  millions  of  Italians  ought  to  be 
united  into  a  single  nation,  that  only  thus  could  they 
occupy  a  position  in  the  world  worthy  of  their  past,  and 
one  that  would  ensure  a  happier  future.  The  most 
thrilling  and  persuasive  spokesman  of  this  national 
aspiration  was  Joseph  Mazzini,  who  lived  from  1805  to 
1872.  Even  as  a  boy  Mazzini  was  impressed  with  the 
unhappiness  and  misery  of  his  country,  subdivided,  as 


4  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

it  was,  into  numerous  jealous  and  warring  states.  "  In 
the  midst  of  the  noisy,  tumultuous  life  of  the  students 
around  me  I  was,"  he  says  in  his  autobiography, 
"  somber  and  absorbed  and  appeared  like  one  suddenly 
grown  old.  I  childishly  determined  to  dress  always  in 
black,  fancying  myself  in  mourning  for  my  country."  At 
the  age  of  twenty-five  Mazzini  was  thrown  into  prison 
because  of  his  liberalism.  After  his  release  from  prison, 
he  founded  a  society  called  "  Young  Italy  "  which  was 
destined  to  be  an  important  factor  in  making  the  new 
Italy.  Its  object  was  to  create,  by  persuasion  and  by 
action,  a  single  country,  common  to  all.  Only  those 
under  forty  were  to  be  admitted  to  membership,  because 
Mazzini's  appeal  was  particularly  to  the  young.  "  Place 
youth  at  the  head  of  the  insurgent  multitude,"  he  said; 
"  you  know  not  the  secret  of  the  power  hidden  in  these 
youthful  hearts,  nor  the  magic  influence  exercised  on 
the  masses  by  the  voice  of  youth.  You  will  find  among 
the  young  a  host  of  apostles  of  the  new  religion."  With 
Mazzini  the  liberation  and  unification  of  Italy  was  indeed 
a  new  religion,  appealing  to  the  loftiest  emotions,  en- 
tailing complete  self-sacrifice,  complete  absorption  in  the 
ideal,  and  the  young  were  to  be  its  apostles.  Theirs 
was  to  be  a  missionary  life.  He  told  them  to  travel, 
to  bear  from  land  to  land,  from  village  to  village,  the 
torch  of  liberty,  to  expound  its  advantages  to  the  people, 
to  establish  and  consecrate  the  cult.  Let  them  not  quail 
before  the  horrors  of  torture  and  imprisonment  that 
might  await  them  in  the  holy  cause.  "  Ideas  grow 
quickly  when  watered  with  the  blood  of  martyrs."  Never 
did  a  cause  have  a  more  dauntless  leader,  a  man  of  purity 
of  life,  a  man  of  imagination,  of  poetry,  of  audacity. 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY      5 

gifted,  moreover,  with  a  marvelous  command  of  per- 
suasive language  and  with  burning  enthusiasm  in 
his  heart.  The  response  was  overwhelming.  By  1833 
the  society  reckoned  60,000  members.  Branches  were 
founded  everywhere.  Garibaldi,  whose  name  men  were 
later  to  conjure  with,  joined  it  on  the  shores  of  the 
Black  Sea.  This  is  the  romantic  proselyting  movement 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  all  the  more  remarkable  from 
the  fact  that  its  members  were  unknown  men,  bringing 
to  their  work  no  advantage  of  wealth  or  social  position. 
But,  as  their  leader  wrote  later,  "  All  great  national 
movements  begin  with  the  unknown  men  of  the  people, 
without  influence  except  for  the  faith  and  will  that 
counts  not  time  or  difficulties." 

Mazzini  believed  that  the  first  thing  to  do  in  bringing 
about  the  unification  of  Italy  was  to  drive  Austria  out 
of  the  country.  Austrians  were  foreigners;  yet  they 
held  the  two  richest  provinces  in  the  peninsula,  Lom- 
bardy  and  Venetia,  and  so  great  were  their  resources  and 
their  power  that  they  dominated,  more  or  less  directly, 
the  other  states.  Only  if  they  were  expelled  could  the 
Italians  unite  and  control  their  own  destinies.  They 
could  be  driven  out  only  by  war,  and  Mazzini  believed 
that  the  Italians  were  numerous  enough  and  brave 
enough  to  carry  through,  alone  and  unaided,  this  neces- 
sary work  of  liberation.  After  the  war  should  succeed, 
Mazzini  hoped  and  urged  that  Italy  should  be  proclaimed 
a  republic,  one  and  indivisible.  Mazzini  worked  at  a 
great  disadvantage,  as  he  was  early  expelled  from  his 
own  country  and  was  compelled  to  spend  nearly  all  his 
lifetime  as  an  exile  in  London,  hampered  by  paltry  re- 
sources, and  cut  off  from  that  intimate  association  with 


6  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

his  own  people  which  is  so  essential  to  effective  leader- 
ship. 

Italy  was  not  made  as  Mazzini  wished  it  to  be;  never- 
theless is  he  one  of  the  chief  of  the  makers  of  Italy.  He 
and  the  society  he  founded  constituted  a  leavening, 
quickening  force  in  the  realm  of  ideas.  Around  them 
grew  up  a  patriotism  for  a  country  that  existed  as  yet 
only  in  the  imagination. 

Italy  was  made  by  a  man  who  was  of  an  utterly 
different  type  from  Mazzini,  Count  Camillo  di  Cavour, 
one  of  the  greatest  statesmen  and  diplomatists;  in  the 
nineteenth  century.  Cavour's  mind  was  the  opposite 
of  Mazzini's,  practical,  positive,  not  poetical  and  specu- 
lative. He  desired  the  unity  and  the  independence  of 
Italy.  He  hated  Austria  as  the  oppressor  of  his  country, 
as  an  oppressor  everywhere.  But,  unlike  Mazzini,  he 
did  not  underestimate  her  power,  nor  did  he  overestimate 
the  power  of  his  own  countrymen.  Cavour  believed,  as 
did  all  the  patriots,  that  Austria  must  be  driven  out  of 
Italy  before  any  Italian  regeneration  could  be  achieved. 
But  he  did  not  believe  with  Mazzini  and  others  that  the 
Italians  could  accomplish  this  feat  alone.  In  his  opinion 
the  history  of  the  last  forty  years  had  shown  that  plots 
and  insurrections  would  not  avail.  It  was  essential  to 
win  the  aid  of  a  great  military  power  comparable  in 
strength  and  discipline  to  Austria. 

Cavour  was  a  thoroughgoing  liberal  in  all  his  con- 
victions and  principles.  He  was  a  great  admirer  of  the 
political  institutions  of  England,  which  he  desired  to  see 
introduced  into  his  own  country.  Night  after  night  he 
had  sat  in  the  gallery  of  the  House  of  Commons,  seeking 
to  make  himself  thoroughly  familiar  with  its  modes  of 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY      7 

procedure.  I£  he  was  to  study  parliamentary  institutions 
anywhere,  it  must  be  abroad,  for  in  none  of  the  states 
in  Italy  was  there  even  a  semblance  of  a  parliament. 
Cavour  demanded  a  parliament  for  his  own  state,  the 
Kingdom  of  Piedmont.  "  Italy,"  he  said,  "  must  make 
herself  by  means  of  liberty,  or  we  must  give  up  trying 
to  make  her." 

Now  in  1848  the  Kingdom  of  Piedmont  did  become 
a  parliamentary  and  constitutional  state.  Previously  the 
king  had  ruled  as  autocrat;  henceforth  he  was  to  share 
his  power  with  his  people.  This  gave  Cavour  his  oppor- 
tunity. He  was  elected  to  the  first  Piedmontese  parlia- 
ment, was  taken  into  the  cabinet  in  1850,  and  became 
prime  minister  in  1852.  He  held  this  position  for  the 
remainder  of  his  life,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  weeks, 
proving  himself  a  great  statesman  and  an  incomparable 
diplomat. 

Cavour  considered  that  the  only  possible  leader  in  the 
work  of  freeing  and  unifying  Italy  was  the  House  of 
Savoy  and  the  Piedmontese  monarchy,  and  he  felt  that 
the  proper  government  of  the  new  state,  if  it  should 
ever  arise,  would  be  a  constitutional  monarchy.  He 
wished  to  make  Piedmont  a  model  state  so  that,  when 
the  time  came,  the  Italians  of  other  states  would  recog- 
nize her  leadership  and  join  in  her  exaltation  as  best 
for  them  all.  Piedmont  had  a  constitution  and  the  other 
states  had  not.  Cavour  saw  to  it  that  she  had  a  free  politi- 
cal life  and  received  a  genuine  training  in  self-govern- 
ment. Also  he  bent  every  energy  to  the  development  of 
the  economic  resources  of  the  kingdom,  by  encouraging 
manufactures,  by  stimulating  commerce,  by  modernizing 
agriculture,  by  building  railroads.    In  a  word  he  sought 


8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

to  make  and  did  make  Piedmont  a  model  small  state, 
liberal  and  progressive,  hoping  thus  to  win  for  her  the 
Italians  of  the  other  states  and  the  interest  and  approval 
of  the  countries  and  rulers  of  western  Europe. 

The  fundamental  purpose,  the  constant  preoccupation 
of  this  man's  life,  determining  every  action,  prompting 
every  wish,  was  to  gain  a  Great  Power  as  an  ally.  In 
the  pursuit  of  this  elusive  and  supremely  difficult  object, 
year  in,  year  out,  Cavour  displayed  his  measure  as  a 
diplomat,  and  stood  forth  finally  without  a  peer.  It  is  a 
marvelously  absorbing  story,  from  which  we  are  pre- 
cluded here  because  it  cannot  be  properly  presented  ex- 
cept at  length.  The  reader  must  go  elsewhere  for  the 
details  of  this  fascinating  record,  in  which  were  com- 
bined, in  rare  harmony,  sound  judgment,  practical  sense, 
powers  of  clear,  subtle,  penetrating  thought,  unfailing 
attention  to  prosaic  details,  with  imagination,  audacity, 
courage,  and  iron  nerve. 

Cavour's  purpose  was  to  unite  Italy.  Italy  could  not 
be  united  unless  Austria  were  driven  out.  Austria  could 
not  be  driven  out  except  by  war,  and  in  a  war  Austria's 
military  power  would  be  far  greater  than  that  of  Pied- 
mont. Piedmont  must,  therefore,  have  an  ally  whose 
military  power  would  be  equal  to  that  of  Austria.  As 
France  was  the  only  other  great  military  power  on  the 
Continent,  Cavour  sought  to  win  the  support  of  the 
ruler  of  that  country,  Napoleon  III.  He  succeeded  in 
1858  and  Napoleon  promised  to  help  Piedmont  expel 
Austria  from  Italy,  and  to  free  Italy  "  from  the  Alps 
to  the  Adriatic."  This  was  the  greatest  triumph  of 
Cavour's  life,  as  it  rendered  everything  else  possible. 

Thus  in  1859  there  came  about  a  war  between  Austria 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY      9 

on  the  one  hand  and  Piedmont  and  France  on  the  other. 
The  latter  were  victorious  in  two  great  battles,  that  of 
Magenta  (June  4)  and  of  Solferino  (June  24).  Sol- 
ferino  was  one  of  the  greatest  battles  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  It  lasted  eleven  hours,  more  than  260,000  men 
were  engaged,  nearly  800  cannon.  The  Allies  lost  over 
17,000  men,  the  Austrians  about  22,000,  All  Lombardy 
was  conquered,  and  Milan  was  occupied.  It  seemed  that 
Venetia  could  be  easily  overrun  and  the  termination  of 
Austrian  rule  in  Italy  effected,  and  Napoleon's  statement 
that  he  would  free  Italy  "  from  the  Alps  to  the  Adri- 
atic "  accomplished.  Suddenly  Napoleon  halted  in  the 
full  tide  of  success,  sought  an  interview  with  the  Emperor 
of  Austria  at  Villafranca,  and  there  on  July  11,  with- 
out consulting  the  wishes  of  his  ally,  concluded  a  famous 
armistice.  The  terms  agreed  upon  by  the  two  Emperors 
were;  that  Lombardy  should  pass  to  Piedmont,  that 
Austria  should  retain  Venetia,  that  the  Italian  states 
should  form  a  confederation,  that  the  rulers  of  Tus- 
cany and  Modena  should  be  restored  to  their  states, 
whence  they  had  just  been  driven  by  popular  up- 
risings. 

This  was  not  what  Cavour  and  the  Italian  liberals 
wanted.  They  wished  to  be  entirely  free  of  Austrian 
influence,  they  wished  the  unity  of  Italy  and  not  a  con- 
federation of  small  Italian  states,  they  did  not  desire  or 
intend  to  restore  the  petty  princes  they  had  overthrown, 
they  wished  the  extension  of  the  rule  of  the  House  of 
Savoy  over  the  entire  peninsula.  All  that  Napoleon  had 
done  had  been  to  secure  Lombardy  for  Piedmont,  an 
important  service,  yet  far  below  what  he  had  promised. 

But  the   future  of  Italy  was  not  to  be  determined 


10  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

solely  by  the  Emperor  of  France  and  the  Emperor  of 
Austria.  The  people  of  Italy  had  their  own  ideas  and 
were  resolved  to  make  them  heard.  During  the  war,  so 
suddenly  and  unexpectedly  closed,  the  rulers  of  Modena, 
Parma,  Tuscany  had  been  overthrown  by  popular  up- 
risings and  the  Pope's  authority  in  Romagna,  the  north- 
ern part  of  his  dominions,  had  been  destroyed.  The 
people  who  had  accomplished  this  had  no  intention  of 
restoring  the  princes  they  had  expelled.  They  defied 
the  two  emperors  who  had  decided  at  Villafranca  that 
those  rulers  should  be  restored.  In  this  they  were  sup- 
ported diplomatically  by  the  English  Government.  This 
was  England's  great  service  to  the  Italians.  "The 
people  of  the  duchies  have  as  much  right  to  change  their 
sovereigns,"  said  Lord  Palmerston,  "  as  the  English 
people,  or  the  French,  or  the  Belgian,  or  the  Swedish. 
The  annexation  of  the  duchies  to  Piedmont  will  be  an 
unfathomable  good  to  Italy."  The  people  of  these  states 
voted  almost  unanimously  in  favor  of  annexation  (March 
11-12,  i860).  Victor  Emmanuel,  King  of  Piedmont, 
accepted  the  sovereignty  thus  offered  him,  and  on  April 
2,  i860,  the  first  parliament  of  the  enlarged  kingdom 
met  in  Turin.  A  small  state  of  less  than  5,000,000  had 
grown  to  one  of  11,000,000  within  a  year.  This  was 
the  most  important  change  in  the  political  system  of 
Europe  since  181 5. 

Napoleon  III  acquiesced  in  all  this,  taking  for  himself 
Savoy  and  Nice  in  return  for  services  rendered.  The 
Peace  of  Villafranca  was  never  enforced. 


I  -r'  I  Aguired  by  Sardinia,  hy  Treat)- of 
^-^-^  Zuridiy.  J^'ov.  lO'J'  1859.  0, 

rTi~\'^'iiiiiexcUiPnt(iSardinm',vot&i1>!/ 
^-^^-^  mWsri/rs,  Mar.  Il,kl2,  MO. 

I  Tn-  vliinc.raHon  to  Sardinia,  voted  by 


I  Tt7  \Aji>a>.ration  t^Sarfiinia.  voted  by 


^ riSiscUe.s.Mv.  4,&S,  ma 

IJjm&ration  tfiSardima^ 
riSiscites,  Oct.  21^',  1360 

I  XT-  I  .^nimratioa  toKino'iam  oritaJy, 
L-^^  Voted  by  IWiscitfS.  Oct  2l,i-22, 1S66. 

i-t-rr  I  dnnmrition  to  Ki)i/)dm)  oflt/ily, 
L^U  Votedby IVehisdtc; Oct2,l870. 

r^g]  CedM  to  France,  Marcfh.  1860. 
fvinl  Ceded  to France,Marrh,  MO. 


i:ji  \ )  c^n 


<r 


K 


Barl 


Kl     Dura  MO  X 


Srindisi 


\Avlona\ 


\Otrtwto 


^  \1      I'- 

Pafffff^    M'mema 


^ 


'ifoiitheone 


i  a 


6*  u  ^ 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY    ii 

The  Conquest  of  the  Kingdom  of  Naples 

Much  had  been  achieved  in  the  eventful  year  just 
described,  but  much  remained  to  be  achieved  before  the 
unification  of  Italy  should  be  complete.  Venetia,  the 
larger  part  of  the  Papal  States,  and  the  Kingdom  of 
Naples  still  stood  outside.  In  the  last,  however,  events 
now  occurred  which  carried  the  process  a  long  step 
forward.  Early  in  i860  the  Sicilians  rose  in  revolt 
against  the  despotism  of  their  new  king,  Francis  II. 
This  insurrection  created  an  opportunity  for  a  man 
already  famous  but  destined  to  fame  far  greater  and 
to  a  memorable  service  to  his  country,  Giuseppe  Gari- 
baldi, already  the  most  popular  military  leader  in  Italy, 
and  invested  with  a  half-mythical  character  of  invinci- 
bility and  daring,  the  result  of  a  very  spectacular,  ro- 
mantic career. 

Garibaldi  was  born  at  Nice  in  1807.  He  was  therefore 
two  years  younger  than  Mazzini  and  three  years  older 
than  Cavour.  Destined  by  his  parents  for  the  priesthood 
he  preferred  the  sea,  and  for  many  years  he  lived  a 
roving  and  adventurous  sailor's  life.  He  early  joined 
"  Young  Italy."  His  military  experience  was  chiefly  in 
irregular,  guerrilla  fighting.  He  took  part  in  the  un- 
successful insurrection  organized  by  Mazzini  in  Savoy 
in  1834,  and  as  a  result  was  condemned  to  death.  He 
managed  to  escape  to  South  America,  where,  for  the 
next  fourteen  years,  he  was  an  exile.  He  participated 
in  the  abundant  wars  of  the  South  American  states 
with  the  famous  "  Italian  Legion,"  which  he  organized 
and  commanded.  Learning  of  the  uprising  of  1848  he 
returned  to  Italy,  though  still  under  the  penalty  of  death, 


12  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

and  immediately  thousands  flocked  to  the  standard  of  the 
"  hero  of  Montevideo "  to  fight  under  him  against  the 
Austrians.  After  the  failure  of  that  campaign  he  went, 
in  1849,  to  Rome  to  assume  the  military  defense  of  the 
republic.  When  the  city  was  about  to  fall  he  escaped 
with  four  thousand  troops,  intending  to  attack  the 
Austrian  power  in  Venetia,  French  and  Austrian  armies 
pursued  him.  He  succeeded  in  evading  them,  but  his 
army  dwindled  away  rapidly  and  the  chase  became  so 
hot  that  he  was  forced  to  escape  to  the  Adriatic.  When 
he  landed  later,  his  enemies  were  immediately  in  full  cry 
again,  hunting  him  through  forests  and  over  mountains 
as  if  he  were  some  dangerous  game.  It  was  a  wonderful 
exploit,  rendered  tragic  by  the  death,  in  a  farmhouse 
near  Ravenna,  of  his  wife  Anita,  who  was  his  com- 
panion in  the  camp  as  in  the  home,  and  who  was  as 
high-spirited,  as  daring,  as  courageous  as  he.  Garibaldi 
finally  escaped  to  America  and  began  once  more  the  life 
of  an  exile.  But  his  story,  shot  through  and  through 
with  heroism  and  chivalry  and  romance,  moved  the 
Italian  people  to  unwonted  depths  of  enthusiasm  and 
admiration. 

For  several  years  Garibaldi  was  a  wanderer,  sailing 
the  seas,  commander  of  a  Peruvian  bark.  For  some 
months,  indeed,  he  was  a  candle  maker  on  Staten  Island, 
but  in  1854  he  returned  to  Italy  and  settled  down  as  a 
farmer  on  the  little  island  of  Caprera.  But  the  events 
of  1859  once  more  brought  him  out  of  his  retirement. 
Again,  as  a  leader  of  volunteers,  he  plunged  into  the  war 
against  Austria  and  immensely  increased  his  reputation. 
He  had  become  the  idol  of  soldiers  and  adventurous 
spirits  from  one  end  of  Italy  to  the  other.     Multitudes 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY     13 

were  ready  to  follow  in  blind  confidence  wherever  he 
might  lead.  His  name  was  one  to  conjure  with.  There 
now  occurred,  in  1866,  the  most  brilliant  episode  of  his 
career,  the  Sicilian  expedition  and  the  campaign  against 
the  Kingdom  of  Naples.  For  Garibaldi,  the  most  re- 
doubtable warrior  of  Italy,  whose  very  name  was  worth 
an  army,  now  decided  on  his  own  account  to  go  to  the 
aid  of  the  Sicilians  who  had  risen  in  revolt  against  their 
king,  Francis  II  of  Naples. 

On  May  5,  i860,  the  expedition  of  "  The  Thousand," 
the  "  Red  Shirts,"  embarked  from  Genoa  in  two 
steamers.  These  were  the  volunteers,  nearly  1,150  men, 
whom  Garibaldi's  fame  had  caused  to  rush  into  the  new 
adventure,  an  adventure  that  seemed  at  the  moment  one 
of  utter  folly.  The  King  of  Naples  had  24,000  troops 
in  Sicily  and  100,000  more  on  the  mainland.  The  odds 
against  success  seemed  overwhelming.  But  fortune 
favored  the  brave.  After  a  campaign  of  a  few  weeks, 
in  which  he  was  several  times  in  great  danger,  and  was 
only  saved  by  the  most  reckless  fighting.  Garibaldi  stood 
master  of  the  island,  helped  by  the  Sicilian  insurgents, 
by  volunteers  who  had  flocked  from  the  mainland,  and 
by  the  incompetency  of  the  commanders  of  the  Nea- 
politan troops.  Audacity  had  won  the  victory.  He 
assumed  the  position  of  Dictator  in  Sicily  in  the  name 
of  Victor  Emmanuel  II   (August  5,   i860). 

Garibaldi  now  crossed  the  straits  to  the  mainland  de- 
termined to  conquer  the  entire  Kingdom  of  Naples 
(August  19,  i860).  The  King  still  had  an  army  of 
100,000  men,  but  it  had  not  even  the  strength  of  a  frail 
reed.  There  was  practically  no  bloodshed.  The  Nea- 
politan   Kingdom    was    not    overthrown;    it    collapsed. 


14  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Treachery,  desertion,  corruption  did  the  work.  On 
September  6,  Francis  II  left  Naples  for  Gaeta  and  the 
next  day  Garibaldi  entered  it  by  rail  with  only  a  few 
attendants,  and  drove  through  the  streets  amid  a  pande- 
monium of  enthusiasm.  In  less  than  five  months  he  had 
conquered  a  kingdom  of  11,000,000  people,  an  achieve- 
ment unique  in  modern  history. 

Garibaldi  now  began  to  talk  of  pushing  on  to  Rome. 
To  Cavour,  the  situation  seemed  full  of  danger.  Gari- 
baldi, a  tempestuous  soldier  himself  and  a  leader  of 
tempestuous  soldiers,  was  totally  lacking  in  the  qualities 
of  a  statesman.  To  him  everything  was  a  matter  for  ac- 
tion, immediate  action,  and  he  had  no  conception  of  the 
extraordinary  complexity  and  delicacy  of  international 
relations.  Should  he  now  attack  Rome,  all  that  had 
been  achieved  in  this  wonderful  year  would  be  im- 
periled. For  Rome  was  the  center  of  Roman  Catholi- 
cism, the  seat  of  the  Pope's  temporal  dominions,  and 
the  Pope's  power  was  supported  by  a  French  garrison. 
Napoleon  III  felt  bound,  in  view  of  the  strong  Catholic 
sentiment  of  his  countrymen,  to  continue  to  support  that 
power.  A  clash  with  him  must,  by  all  means,  be  avoided, 
and  Garibaldi  was  heading  straight  toward  such 
a  clash.  Here  was  an  adjustment  that  might  be 
made  by  diplomacy;  it  could  not  be  made  by  the 
sword. 

Cavour,  therefore,  resolved  to  block  any  further  activ- 
ity of  Garibaldi.  He  secured  the  assent  of  Napoleon 
III  to  the  annexation  by  Victor  Emmanuel  of  the  out- 
lying sections  of  the  Papal  States,  the  Marches,  and  Um- 
bria,  promising  in  turn  not  to  touch  the  city  of  Rome 
and  the  territory  immediately  surrounding  it.    This  be- 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY     15 

ing  arranged,  Victor  Emmanuel  marched  southward,  took 
the  leadership  from  Garibaldi  and  completed  the  con- 
quest of  the  Kingdom  of  Naples,  not  quite  finished  by 
the  latter.  Thereupon  referendums  were  held  in  the 
Marches,  Umbria,  and  the  Kingdom  of  Naples,  result- 
ing overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  annexation  to  the 
new  Kingdom  of  Italy. 

On  the  1 8th  of  February,  1861,  a  new  Parliament,  rep- 
resenting all  Italy  except  Venetia  and  Rome,  met  in 
Turin.  The  Kingdom  of  Sardinia  now  gave  way  to  the 
Kingdom  of  Italy,  proclaimed  on  March  17.  Victor  Em- 
manuel II  was  declared  "by  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
will  of  the  nation,  King  of  Italy." 

A  new  kingdom,  comprising  a  population  of  about 
twenty-two  millions,  had  arisen  during  a  period  of  eigh- 
teen months,  and  now  took  its  place  among  the  powers 
of  Europe.  But  the  Kingdom  of  Italy  was  still  incom- 
plete. Venetia  was  still  Austrian  and  Rome  was  still 
subject  to  the  Pope.  The  acquisition  of  these  had  to  be 
postponed. 

Nevertheless,  Cavour  felt  that  "  without  Rome  there 
was  no  Italy,"  and  he  was  working  on  a  scheme  which 
he  hoped  might  reconcile  the  Pope  and  the  Catholic  world 
everywhere  to  the  recognition  of  Rome  as  the  capital 
of  the  new  kingdom,  when  he  suddenly  fell  ill  and 
died  on  June  6,   1861. 

Throughout  his  life  Cavour  remained  faithful  to  his 
fundamental  political  principle,  government  by  parliament 
and  by  constitutional  forms.  Urged  at  various  times  to 
assume  a  dictatorship  he  replied  that  he  had  no  confi- 
dence in  dictatorships.  "  I  always  feel  strongest,"  he 
said,  "  when  Parliament  is  sitting."     "  I  cannot  betray 


i6  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

my  origin,  deny  the  principles  of  all  my  life,"  he  wrote 
in  a  private  letter  not  intended  for  the  public.  "  I  am 
the  son  of  liberty  and  to  her  I  owe  all  that  I  am.  If 
a  veil  is  to  be  placed  on  her  statue,  it  is  not  for  me  to 
do  it." 

Germany 

From  1815  to  1866  there  were  between  thirty  and 
forty  independent  German  states,  united  in  a  very  loose 
and  ineffective  confederation.  There  was  no  German 
nation,  as  we  understand  the  term.  There  was  no  king 
or  emperor  of  Germany.  There  was  no  German  flag. 
No  one  was,  properly  speaking,  a  German  citizen.  He 
was  a  Prussian,  or  Austrian,  or  Bavarian  or  Saxon  citi- 
zen, as  the  case  might  be.  The  federal  government  had 
no  diplomatic  representatives  in  the  other  countries  of 
Europe,  but  each  state  had,  or  could  have,  its  own  diplo- 
matic corps.  The  German  as  German  had  no  legal  stand- 
ing abroad — only  as  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  separate 
states.  Each  state  could  make  alliances  with  the  others 
or  with  non-German  states. 

All  this  was  changed  during  the  years  from  1866  to 
187 1.  German  liberals  and  patriots  had  long  been  dis- 
contented with  this  loose  and  weak  confederation,  which 
was  a  mockery  of  a  nation,  and  had  long  desired  to 
achieve  that  unity  and  strength  which  France  and  Eng- 
land had  achieved  much  earlier.  This  feeling  of  dissatis- 
faction, and  this  passionate  aspiration,  had,  for  decades, 
been  expressed  by  many  men  and  on  many  occa- 
sions. In  1848,  a  year  of  revolution  for  Germany,  an 
earnest  attempt  had  been  made  to  achieve  German  unity, 
to  create  a  strong  German  state.     But  the  attempt  bad 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY     17 

failed.  Nearly  twenty  years  later  the  attempt  was  re- 
newed, but  under  very  different  auspices.  In  1848  it 
had  been  the  liberals  who  had  tried  to  achieve  Ger- 
man unity,  by  persuasion,  by  argument,  by  democratic 
methods,  and  in  the  interest  of  democracy.  In  1866 
leadership  rested  with  Bismarck,  who  hated  democracy, 
who  hated  constitutions,  who  admired  absolute  monarchy, 
the  House  of  Hohenzollern  and  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia. 
Indeed,  Bismarck's  political  ideas  centered  in  his  ardent 
belief  in  the  Prussian  monarchy.  It  had  been  the  Prussian 
kings,  he  said,  not  the  Prussian  people,  who  had  made 
Prussia  great.  This,  the  great  historic  fact,  must  be  pre- 
served, whatever  else  might  be  changed  in  the  course  of 
time.  What  Prussian  kings  had  done,  they  still  would  do. 
Any  reduction  of  royal  power  would  only  be  damaging  to 
the  state.  Bismarck  was  the  uncompromising  foe  of  the 
attempts  made  in  1848  to  achieve  German  unity,  because 
he  thought  that  it  should  be  the  princes  and  not  the  peo- 
ple who  should  determine  the  institutions  and  destinies 
of  Germany.  "  I  look  for  Prussian  honor  in  Prussia's 
abstinence  before  all  things  from  every  shameful  union 
with  democracy,"  was  one  of  his  famous  phrases.  And 
another  was  this :  "  Not  by  ipeeches  and  majority  votes 
are  the  great  questions  of  the  day  decided — that  was  the 
great  blunder  of  1848  and  1849 — but  by  blood  and  iron  " ; 
in  other  words,  the  army,  not  parliament,  would  deter- 
mine the  future  of  Prussia. 

This  "  blood  and  iron  "  policy  was  bitterly  denounced 
by  liberals,  but  Bismarck  ignored  their  criticisms  and  soon 
found  a  chance  to  begin  its  application.  He  became  the 
chief  minister  of  King  William  I  in  1862  and  was  des- 
tined to  remain  the  chief  minister  for  nearly  thirty  years, 


i8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

until  he  was  dismissed  in  1890  by  William  II.  During 
that  time  he  increased  the  territory  of  Prussia  and  re- 
modeled Germany,  making  her  a  powerful  empire  and  the 
center  of  the  European  state  system. 

Bismarck's  political  views  were  entirely  sympathetic  to 
King  William  I,  who  likewise  believed  that  the  monarch 
and  the  army  should  control  and  shape  the  destinies  of 
Prussia  and  of  Germany.  William  I  himself  wrote,  in 
1849,  that  "whoever  wishes  to  rule  Germany  must  con- 
quer it,  and  that  cannot  be  done  by  phrases." 

The  German  Empire  was  the  result  of  the  policy  of 
blood  and  iron  as  carried  out  by  Prussia  in  three  wars 
which  were  crowded  into  the  brief  period  of  six  years, 
the  war  with  Denmark  in  1864,  with  Austria  in  1866,  and 
with  France  in  1870,  each  one  of  which  was  desired  and 
provoked  by  Bismarck. 

In  the  first  war  Prussia  and  Austria  combined  and  at- 
tacked Denmark  after  having  given  her  an  ultimatum 
allowing  her  only  forty-eight  hours  to  comply  with  their 
demands,  which,  indeed,  they  did  not  expect  or  intend 
that  she  should  accept.  The  two  great  powers  easily  de- 
feated the  one  small  one  and  then  they  took  from  her  the 
two  provinces  of  Schleswig  and  Holstein,  which  they 
forthwith  proceeded  to  hold  in  common. 

This  situation  was  one  that  exactly  suited  Bismarck, 
for  he  wanted  a  quarrel  with  Austria  and  a  quarrel  can 
easily  be  brought  about  between  two  robbers  over  the 
question  as  to  how  they  are  to  dispose  of  their  spoils. 
Bismarck  had  for  ten  years  desired  a  war  with  Austria 
because  in  the  German  Confederation  Austria  was  the 
leading  power  and  Bismarck  wished  that  position  for 
Prussia.     He  also  wished  German  unity,  but  he  wished 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY     19 

it  to  be  achieved  by  Prussia  and  for  Prussia's  advantage. 
This  could  not  be  done  as  long  as  Austria  remained  con- 
nected with  the  other  German  states.  In  Bismarck's 
opinion  there  was  not  room  enough  in  Germany  for  both 
powers.  That  being  the  case,  he  wished  the  room  for 
Prussia.  The  only  way  to  get  it  was  to  take  it.  As  Aus- 
tria had  no  intention  of  yielding  gracefully  there  would 
have  to  be  a  fight. 

Finally  war  broke  out  in  June,  1866.  Bismarck  had 
thus  brought  about  his  dream  of  a  conflict  between  peo- 
ples of  the  same  race  to  determine  the  question  of  con- 
trol. It  proved  to  be  one  of  the  shortest  wars  in  history, 
one  of  the  most  decisive,  and  one  whose  consequences 
were  most  momentous.  It  is  called  the  Seven  Weeks' 
War,  It  began  June  16,  1866,  was  virtually  decided  on 
July  3d,  was  brought  to  a  close  before  the  end  of  that 
month  by  the  preliminary  Peace  of  Nikolsburg,  July  26, 
which  was  followed  a  month  later  by  the  definitive  Peace 
of  Prague,  August  23.  Prussia  had  no  German  allies 
of  any  importance.  Several  of  the  North  German  states 
sided  with  her,  but  these  were  small  and  their  armies 
were  unimportant.  On  the  other  hand,  Austria  was 
supported  by  the  four  kingdoms,  Bavaria,  Wiirtemberg, 
Saxony,  and  Hanover;  also  by  Hesse-Cassel,  Hesse- 
Darmstadt,  Nassau,  and  Baden.  But  Prussia  had  one  im- 
portant ally,  Italy,  without  whose  aid  she  might  not  have 
won  the  victory.  Italy  was  to  receive  Venetia,  which  she 
coveted,  if  Austria  were  defeated.  The  Prussian  army, 
however,  was  better  prepared.  For  years  the  rulers  of 
Prussia  had  been  preparing  for  war,  perfecting  the  army 
down  to  the  minutest  detail,  and  with  scientific  thorough- 
ness, and  when  the  war  began  it  was  absolutely  readys 


20  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Moreover,  it  was  directed  by  a  very  able  leader,  General 
von  Moltke. 

Prussia  had  many  enemies.  Being  absolutely  prepared, 
as  her  enemies  were  not,  she  could  assume  the  offensive, 
and  this  was  the  cause  of  her  first  victories.  War  began 
June  1 6.  Within  three  days  Prussian  troops  had  occu- 
pied Hanover,  Dresden,  and  Cassel,  the  capitals  of  her 
three  North  German  enemies.  A  few  days  later  the 
Hanoverian  army  was  forced  to  capitulate.  The  King 
of  Hanover  and  the  Elector  of  Hesse  were  taken  pris- 
oners of  war.  All  North  Germany  was  now  controlled 
by  Prussia,  and  within  two  weeks  of  the  opening  of  the 
war  she  was  ready  to  attempt  the  great  plan  of  Moltke, 
an  invasion  of  Bohemia.  The  rapidity  of  the  campaign 
struck  Europe  with  amazement.  Moltke  sent  three  arm- 
ies by  different  routes  into  Bohemia,  and  on  July  3,  1866, 
one  of  the  great  battles  of  history,  that  of  Koniggratz, 
or  Sadowa,  was  fought.  Each  army  numbered  over 
200,000,  the  Prussians  outnumbering  the  Austrians, 
though  not  at  the  beginning.  Since  the  battle  of  Leipsic 
in  18 1 3,  so  many  troops  had  not  been  engaged  in  a  single 
conflict.  King  William,  Bismarck,  and  Moltke  took  up 
their  position  on  a  hill,  whence  they  could  view  the  scene. 
The  battle  was  long  and  doubtful.  Beginning  early  in  the 
morning,  it  continued  for  hours,  fought  with  terrific  fury, 
the  Prussians  making  no  advance  against  the  Austrian 
artillery.  Up  to  two  o'clock  it  seemed  an  Austrian  vic- 
tory, but  with  the  arrival  of  the  Prussian  Crown  Prince 
with  his  army  the  issue  was  turned,  and  at  half -past  three 
the  Austrians  were  beaten  and  their  retreat  began.  They 
had  lost  over  forty  thousand  men,  while  the  Prussian 
loss  was  alicut  ten  thousand.    The  Prussian  army  during 


NATIONALISM  IN  ITALY  AND  GERMANY      21 

the  next  three  weeks  advanced  to  within  sight  of  the 
spires  of  Vienna. 

On  June  24  the  Austrians  had  been  victorious  over  the 
ItaHans  at  Custozza.  Yet  the  Italians  had  helped  Prussia 
by  detaining  eighty  thousand  Austrian  troops,  which,  had 
they  been  at  Koniggratz,  would  probably  have  turned  the 
day.  The  Italian  fleet  was  also  defeated  by  the  Austrian 
at  Lissa,  July  20. 

The  results  of  the  Seven  Weeks'  War  were  momen- 
tous. Fearing  the  intervention  of  Europe,  and  particu- 
larly that  of  France,  which  was  threatened,  and  which 
might  rob  the  victory  of  its  fruits,  Bismarck  wished  to 
make  peace  at  once,  and  consequently  offered  lenient  terms 
to  Austria.  She  was  to  cede  Venetia  to  Italy,  but  was 
to  lose  no  other  territory.  She  was  to  withdraw  from 
the  German  Confederation,  which,  indeed,  was  to  cease 
to  exist.  She  was  to  allow  Prussia  to  organize  and  lead 
anew  confederation,  composed  of  those  states  which  were 
north  of  the  river  Main.  The  South  German  states  were 
left  free  to  act  as  they  chose.  Thus  Germany,  north  of 
the  Main,  was  to  be  united. 

Having  accomplished  this,  Prussia  proceeded  to  make 
important  annexations  to  her  own  territory.  The  King- 
dom of  Hanover,  the  Duchies  of  Nassau  and  Hesse- 
Cassel,  and  the  free  city  of  Frankfort,  as  well  as  the 
Duchies  of  Schleswig  and  Holstein,  were  incorporated 
in  the  Prussian  kingdom.  Her  population  was  thereby 
increased  by  over  four  and  a  half  million  new  subjects, 
and  thus  was  about  twenty- four  million.  There  was  no 
thought  of  having  the  people  of  these  states  vote  on  the 
question  of  annexation,  as  had  been  done  in  Italy,  and 
in  Savoy  and  Nice.     They  were  annexed  forthwith  b^ 


2^  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

right  of  military  conquest.  Reigning  houses  ceased  to  rule 
on  order  from  Berlin.  Unwisely  for  themselves  Euro- 
pean nations  allowed  the  swift  consummation  of  these 
changes,  which  altered  the  balance  of  power  and  the  map 
of  Europe — a  mistake  which  France  m  particular  was 
to  repent  most  bitterly.  "  I  do  not  like  this  dethrone- 
ment of  dynasties,"  said  the  Czar,  but  he  failed  to  ex- 
press his  dislike  in  action. 

The  North  German  Confederation,  which  was  now 
created,  included  all  of  Germany  north  of  the  river  Main, 
twenty-two  states  in  all.  The  constitution  was  the  work 
of  Bismarck.  There  was  to  be  a  president  of  the  Con- 
federation, namely,  the  King  of  Prussia.  There  was  to 
be  a  Federal  Council  (Bundesrath),  composed  of  dele- 
gates sent  by  the  sovereigns  of  the  different  states,  to  be 
recalled  at  their  pleasure,  to  vote  as  they  dictated.  Prus- 
sia was  always  to  have  seventeen  votes  out  of  the  total 
forty-three.  In  order  to  have  a  majority  she  would  have 
to  gain  only  a  few  adherents  from  the  other  states,  which 
she  could  easily  do. 

There  was  also  to  be  a  Reichstag,  elected  by  the  peo- 
ple. This  was  Bismarck's  concession  to  the  Liberals.  Of 
the  two  bodies  the  Reichstag  was  much  the  less  impor- 
tant. The  people  were  given  a  place  in  the  new  system, 
but  a  subordinate  one. 

The  new  constitution  went  into  force  July  t,  1867. 
This  North  German  Confederation  remained  in  existence 
only  four  years  when  it  gave  way  to  the  present  German 
Empire,  one  of  the  results  of  the  Franco-Prussian  War 
of  1870. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  FRANCO-PRUSSIAN  WAR 

By  the  year  1867  all  of  Italy  was  united  into  a  king- 
dom under  the  House  of  Savoy,  except  the  city  of  Rome 
and  the  region  immediately  surrounding  it,  and  all  of 
Germany  was  united  into  a  strong  confederation,  under 
the  leadership  of  the  House  of  Hohenzollern,  except  the 
South  German  states,  Bavaria,  Baden,  Wiirtemberg,  and 
a  part  of  Hesse-Darmstadt.  The  unification,  however, 
of  neither  country  could  be  considered  complete  until 
these  detached  parts  were  joined  with  the  main  mass. 
This  was  brought  about  as  one  of  the  incidents  of  the 
Franco-Prussian  War  of  1870.  Some  knowledge  of  that 
war,  therefore,  is  necessary  to  a  comprehension  of  the 
subsequent  period.  Another  by-product  of  that  war  was 
the  Third  French  Republic,  a  fact  in  contemporary 
Europe  of  large  significance.  How  did  the  clash  come 
about  between  France  and  Prussia,  a  clash  that  had  such 
consequences  ? 

France,  since  1852,  had  been  an  empire,  ruled  over 
by  the  Emperor  Napoleon  III,  nephew  of  the  great  Napo- 
leon. The  Emperor  played  a  large  role  in  European  poli- 
tics from  1852  to  1870.  His  government  was  as  much 
of  an  imitation  of  the  system  of  Napoleon  I  as  the  nature 
of  the  times  and  the  character  of  the  ruler  would  allow. 
During  most  of  the  period  the  government  was  auto- 

23 


24  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

cratic;  only  toward  the  end  was  it  somewhat  liberalized. 
In  the  main  it  was  the  personality  of  the  monarch  that 
counted,  and  that  shaped  the  course  of  events.  While 
there  were  occasional  elections  and  a  national  legisla- 
ture, and  while  universal  suffrage  nominally  existed,  in 
practice  the  legislature  was  controlled  by  the  Emperor, 
universal  suffrage  was  cleverly  manipulated,  the  Em- 
peror was,  in  large  measure,  an  absolute  sovereign. 
France  experienced  a  great  economic  expansion  during 
this  reign  and  grew  in  wealth.  The  chief  feature  of 
the  reign  was  the  Emperor's  foreign  policy,  which  led 
to  several  wars.  One  of  these  contributed,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  the  making  of  the  Kingdom  of  Italy.  Another, 
the  Franco-German  war  of  1870,  brought  the  Empire 
to  an  abrupt  and  catastrophic  close. 

The  war  of  1866  between  Prussia  and  Austria,  a  war 
in  which  France  did  not  participate,  exerted  a  most  un- 
fortunate influence  upon  the  public  opinion  of  France 
and  upon  the  prestige  of  the  French  Emperor.  That 
war  had  resulted  in  greatly  increasing  the  territory  of 
Prussia,  in  expelling  Austria  from  Germany,  in  found- 
ing a  strong  state,  east  of  France,  the  North  German 
Confederation.  This  swift  rise  of  Prussia  to  a  position 
she  had  never  held  before,  this  sweeping  reorganization 
of  Central  Europe,  created  a  widespread  feeling  of  appre- 
hension and  alarm  throughout  France.  Frenchmen  felt 
that  the  balance  of  power  was  upset,  that  France  was 
no  longer  safe  as  she  had  been,  now  that  she  had,  on 
her  eastern  border,  a  strong,  successful,  aggressive  mili- 
tary state.  Frenchmen  thought  that  Napoleon  III  could 
have  and  should  have  prevented  this  change,  so  full  of 
possible  menace.    As  he  had  not  done  so,  as  the  new  sit- 


THE  FRANCO-PRUSSIAN  WAR  25 

uation  had  come  to  pass  with  the  Emperor  merely  stand- 
ing by,  a  spectator  and  not  an  active  and  effective  partici- 
pant, Napoleon's  popularity  was  greatly  decreased  and 
confidence  in  his  wisdom  and  foresight  was  greatly  dimin- 
ished. He  might,  at  least,  have  seized  the  occasion  of 
the  crisis  of  1866  to  gain  some  unmistakable  compensa- 
tion for  France,  which  would  have  kept  the  balance  even. 

This  feeling  of  anxiety  and  of  indignation  which 
spread  through  France  after  1866  was  crystalized  in  the 
phrase  "  Revenge  for  Sadowa,"  Sadowa  being  the  name 
by  which  the  decisive  battle  of  Koniggratz  was  known  to 
Frenchmen.  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  was  that,  if  one 
state,  like  Prussia,  should  be  increased  in  area  and  power, 
France  also,  for  consenting  to  it,  had  a  right  to  a  pro- 
portionate increase,  that  thus  the  reciprocal  relations 
might  remain  the  same.  But  the  golden  moment  for  de- 
manding this  had  been  allowed  carelessly,  imprudently 
to  slip  by.  And  golden  moments  ought  not  to  be 
neglected,  for  they  have  a  way  of  not  returning. 

From  1866  to  1870  the  idea  that  ultimately  a  war 
would  come  between  Prussia  and  France  became  familiar 
to  the  people  and  governments  of  both  countries.  Many 
Frenchmen  desired  "  revenge  for  Sadowa."  Prussians 
were  proud  and  elated  at  their  two  successful  wars,  and 
intensely  conscious  of  their  new  position  in  Europe.  The 
newspapers  of  both  countries  during  the  next  four  years 
were  full  of  crimination  and  recrimination,  of  abuse  and 
taunt,  the  Government  in  neither  case  greatly  discourag- 
ing their  unwise  conduct,  at  times  even  inspiring  and 
directing  it.  Such  an  atmosphere  was  an  excellent  one 
for  ministers  who  wanted  war  to  work  in,  and  both 
France  and  Prussia  had  just  such  ministers.     Bismarck 


26  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

believed  such  a  war  inevitable,  and,  in  his  opinion,  it 
was  desirable  as  the  only  way  of  completing  the  unifica- 
tion of  Germany,  since  Napoleon  would  never  willingly 
consent  to  the  extension  of  the  Confederation  to  include 
the  South  German  states.  All  that  he  desired  was  that 
it  should  come  at  precisely  the  right  moment,  when  Prus- 
sia was  entirely  ready,  and  that  it  should  come  by  act  of 
France,  so  that  Prussia  could  pose  before  Europe  as 
merely  defending  herself  against  a  wanton  aggressor. 

With  responsible  statesmen  in  such  a  temper  it  was  not 
difficult  to  bring  about  a  war.  And  yet  the  Franco-Prus- 
sian War  broke  most  unexpectedly,  like  a  thunderstorm, 
over  Europe.  Undreamed  of  July  i,  1870,  it  began  July 
15.  It  came  in  a  roundabout  way.  The  Spanish  throne 
was  vacant,  as  a  revolution  had  driven  the  monarch, 
Queen  Isabella,  out  of  that  country.  On  July  2,  news 
reached  Paris  that  Leopold  of  Hohenzollern,  a  relative 
of  the  King  of  Prussia,  had  accepted  the  Spanish  crown. 
Bismarck  was  behind  this  Hohenzollern  candidacy,  zeal- 
ously furthering  it,  despite  the  fact  that  he  knew  Na- 
poleon's feeling  of  hostility  to  it.  Great  was  the  indig- 
nation of  the  French  papers  and  parliament  and  a  most 
dangerous  crisis  developed  rapidly.  Other  powers  inter- 
vened, laboring  in  the  interests  of  peace.  On  July  12, 
it  was  announced  that  the  Hohenzollern  candidacy  was 
withdrawn. 

The  tension  was  immediately  relieved;  the  war  scare 
was  over.  Two  men,  however,  were  not  pleased  by  this 
outcome,  Bismarck,  whose  intrigue  was  now  foiled  and 
whose  humiliation  was  so  great  that  he  thought  he  must 
resign  and  retire  into  private  life,  and  Gramont,  the 
French  minister  of  foreign  affairs,   a  reckless,  bluster- 


THE  FRANCO-PRUSSIAN  WAR  27 

ing  politician  who  was  not  satisfied  with  the  diplomatic 
victory  he  had  won,  but  wished  to  win  another  which 
would  increase  the  discomfiture  of  Prussia.  The  French 
ministry  now  made  an  additional  demand  that  the  King 
of  Prussia  should  promise  that  this  Hohenzollern  candi- 
dacy should  never  be  renewed.  The  King  declined  to  do 
so  and,  in  a  despatch  from  Ems,  authorized  Bismarck 
to  publish  an  account  of  the  incident.  Here  was  Bis- 
marck's opportunity  which  he  used  ruthlessly  and 
joyously  to  provoke  the  French  to  declare  war.  His 
account,  as  he  himself  says,  was  intended  to  be  "  a 
red  flag  for  the  Gallic  bull."  The  effect  of  its  publica- 
tion was  instantaneous.  It  aroused  the  indignation 
of  both  countries  to  fever  heat.  The  Prussians  thought 
that  their  King,  the  French  that  their  ambassador  had 
been  insulted.  As  if  this  were  not  sufficient  the  news- 
papers of  both  countries  teemed  with  false,  abusive,  and 
inflammatory  accounts.  The  voice  of  the  advocates  of 
peace  was  drowned  in  the  general  clamor.  The  head  of 
the  French  ministry  declared  that  he  accepted  this  war 
**  with  a  light  heart."  This  war,  declared  by  France  on 
July  15,  grew  directly  out  of  mere  diplomatic  fencing. 
The  French  people  did  not  desire  it,  only  the  people  of 
Paris,  inflamed  by  an  official  press.  Indeed,  until  it  was 
declared,  the  French  people  hardly  knew  of  the  matter 
of  dispute.  It  came  upon  them  unexpectedly.  The  war 
was  made  by  the  responsible  heads  of  two  Governments. 
It  was  in  its  origin  in  no  sense  national  in  either  coun- 
try. Its  immediate  occasion  was  trivial.  But  it  was  the 
cause  of  a  remarkable  display  of  patriotism  in  both  coun- 
tries. 

The  war  upon  which  the  French  ministry  entered  with 


a8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

so  light  a  heart  was  destined  to  prove  the  most  disastrous 
in  the  history  of  their  country.  In  every  respect  it 
was  begun  under  singularly  inauspicious  circumstances. 
France  declared  war  upon  Prussia  alone,  but  in  a  manner 
that  threw  the  South  German  states,  upon  whose  sup- 
port she  had  counted,  directly  into  the  camp  of  Bismarck. 
They  regarded  the  French  demand,  that  the  King  of 
Prussia  should  pledge  himself  for  all  time  to  forbid  the 
Prince  of  Hohenzollern's  candidature,  as  unnecessary  and 
insulting.  At  once  Bavaria  and  Baden  and  Wurtemberg 
joined  the  campaign  on  the  side  of  Prussia. 

The  French  military  authorities  made  the  serious  mis- 
take of  grossly  underestimating  the  difficulty  of  the  task 
before  them.  Incredible  lack  of  preparation  was  revealed 
at  once.  The  French  army  was  poorly  equipped,  and  was 
far  inferior  in  numbers  and  in  the  ability  of  its  command- 
ers to  the  Prussian  army.  With  the  exception  of  a  few 
ineffectual  successes  the  war  was  a  long  series  of  reverses 
for  the  French.  The  Germans  crossed  the  Rhine  into 
Alsace  and  Lorraine,  and  succeeded,  after  several  days 
of  very  heavy  fighting,  in  shutting  up  Bazaine,  with  the 
principal  French  army,  in  Metz,  a  strong  fortress  which 
the  Germans  than  besieged. 

On  September  i,  another  French  army,  with  which  was 
the  Emperor,  was  defeated  at  Sedan  and  was  obliged 
on  the  following  day  to  surrender  to  the  Germans.  Na- 
poleon himself  became  a  prisoner  of  war.  The  French 
lost,  on  these  two  days,  in  killed,  wounded,  or  taken 
prisoners,  nearly  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  men. 

Disasters  so  appalling  resounded  throughout  the  world. 
France  no  longer  had  an  army ;  one  had  capitulated  at 
Sedan;  the  other  was  locked  up  in  Metz.    The  early  de- 


THE  FRANCO-PRUSSIAN  WAR  29 

feats  of  August  had  been  announced  in  Paris  by  the  Gov- 
ernment as  victories.  The  deception  could  no  longer  be 
maintained.  On  September  3  this  despatch  was  received 
from  the  Emperor :  "  The  army  has  been  defeated  and 
is  captive;  I  myself  am  a  prisoner."  As  a  prisoner  he 
was  no  longer  head  of  the  government  of  France;  there 
was,  as  Thiers  said,  a  "  vacancy  of  power."  On  Sunday, 
September  4,  the  Legislative  Body  was  convened.  But 
it  had  no  time  to  deliberate.  The  mob  invaded  the  hall 
shouting,  "  Down  with  the  Empire !  Long  live  the  Re- 
public !  "  Gambetta,  Jules  Favre,  and  Jules  Ferry,  fol- 
lowed by  the  crowd,  proceeded  to  the  Hotel  de  Ville 
and  there  proclaimed  the  Republic.  The  Empress  fled. 
A  Government  of  National  Defense  was  organized,  with 
General  Trochu  at  its  head,  which  was  the  actual  gov- 
ernment of  France  during  the  rest  of  the  war. 

The  Franco-German  War  lasted  about  six  months,  from 
the  first  of  August,  1870,  when  fighting  began,  to  about 
the  first  of  February,  1871.  It  falls  naturally  into  two 
periods,  the  imperial  and  the  republican.  During  the  first, 
which  was  limited  to  the  month  of  August,  the  regular 
armies  were,  as  we  have  seen,  destroyed  or  bottled  up. 
Then  the  Empire  collapsed  and  the  Emperor  was  a  pris- 
oner in  Germany.  The  second  period  lasted  five  months. 
France,  under  the  Government  of  National  Defense,  made 
a  remarkably  courageous  and  spirited  defense  under  the 
most  discouraging  conditions. 

The  Germans,  leaving  a  sufficient  army  to  carry  on 
the  siege  of  Metz,  advanced  toward  Paris.  They  began 
the  siege  of  that  city  on  September  19.  This  siege,  one 
of  the  most  famous  in  history,  lasted  four  months,  and 
astonished  Europe.     Immense  stores  had  been  collected 


30  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

in  the  city,  the  citizens  were  armed,  and  the  defense  was 
energetic.  The  Parisians  hoped  to  hold  out  long  enough 
to  enable  new  armies  to  be  organized  and  diplomacy  pos- 
sibly to  intervene.  To  accomplish  the  former  a  delega- 
tion from  the  Government  of  National  Defense,  headed 
by  Gambetta,  escaped  from  Paris  by  balloon,  and  estab- 
lished a  branch  seat  of  government  first  at  Tours,  then 
at  Bordeaux.  Gambetta,  by  his  immense  energy,  his 
eloquence,  his  patriotism,  was  able  to  raise  new  armies, 
whose  resistance  astonished  the  Germans,  but  as  they 
had  not  time  to  be  thoroughly  trained,  they  were  un- 
successful. They  could  not  break  the  immense  circle 
of  iron  that  surrounded  Paris.  After  the  overthrow  of 
the  Empire  the  war  was  reduced  to  the  siege  of  Paris 
and  the  attempts  of  these  improvised  armies  to  break 
that  siege.  These  attempts  were  rendered  all  the  more 
hopeless  by  the  fall  of  Metz  (October  27,  1870).  Six 
thousand  officers  and  173,000  men  were  forced  by  im- 
pending starvation  to  surrender,  with  hundreds  of  can- 
non and  immense  war  supplies,  the  greatest  capitulation 
"  recorded  in  the  history  of  civilized  nations."  A  month 
earlier,  on  September  2-],  Strasburg  had  surrendered  and 
19,000  soldiers  had  become  prisoners  of  war. 

The  capitulation  of  Metz  was  particularly  disastrous, 
because  it  made  possible  the  sending  of  more  German 
armies  to  reenforce  the  siege  of  Paris,  and  to  attack  the 
forces  which  Gambetta  was,  by  prodigies  of  effort,  creat- 
ing in  the  rest  of  France.  These  armies  could  not  get 
to  the  relief  of  Paris,  nor  could  the  troops  within  Paris 
break  through  to  them.  The  siege  became  simply  a  ques- 
tion of  endurance. 

The  Germans  began  the  bombardment  of  the  city  early; 


THE  FRANCO-PRUSSIAN  WAR  31 

in  January.  Certain  sections  suffered  terribly,  and  were 
ravaged  by  fires.  Famine  stared  the  Parisians  in  the 
face.  After  November  20  there  was  no  more  beef  or 
lamb  to  be  had;  after  December  15  only  thirty  grams 
of  horse  meat  a  day  per  person,  which,  moreover,  cost 
about  two  dollars  and  a  half  a  pound;  after  January  15 
the  amount  of  bread,  a  wretched  stuff,  was  reduced  to 
three  hundred  grams.  People  ate  anything  they  could 
get,  dogs,  cats,  rats.  The  market  price  for  rats  was 
two  francs  apiece.  By  the  31st  of  January,  there  would 
be  nothing  left  to  eat.  Additional  suffering  arose  from 
the  fact  that  the  winter  was  one  of  the  coldest  on  record. 
Coal  and  firewood  were  exhausted.  Trees  in  the  Champs 
Elysees  and  the  Bois  de  Boulogne  were  cut  down,  and 
fires  built  in  the  public  squares  for  the  poor.  Wine  froze 
in  casks.  On  January  28,  with  famine  almost  upon  her, 
Paris  capitulated  after  an  heroic  resistance. 

The  terms  of  peace  granted  by  Bismarck  were  extraor- 
dinarily severe.  They  were  laid  down  in  the  Treaty  of 
Frankfort,  signed  May  10,  1871.  France  was  forced  to 
cede  Alsace  and  a  large  part  of  Lorraine,  including  the 
important  fortress  of  Metz.  She  must  pay  an  absolutely 
unprecedented  war  indemnity  of  five  thousand  million 
francs  (a  billion  dollars)  within  three  years.  She  was  to 
support  a  German  army  of  occupation,  which  should  be 
gradually  withdrawn  as  the  installments  of  the  indemnity 
were  paid. 

The  Treaty  of  Frankfort  has  remained  the  open  sore  of 
Europe  since  1871.  France  could  never  forget  or  forgive 
the  deep  humiliation  of  it.  The  enormous  fine  might,  with 
the  lapse  of  time,  have  been  overlooked,  but  never  the 
Seizure  of  the  two  provinces  by  mere  force  and  against 


32  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

the  unanimous  and  passionate  protest  of  the  people  of 
Alsace  and  Lorraine.  Moreover  the  eastern  frontier  of 
France  was  seriously  weakened. 

Meanwhile  other  events  had  occurred  as  a  result  of  this 
war.  Italy  had  completed  her  unification  by  seizing  the 
city  of  Rome,  thus  terminating  the  temporal  rule  of  the 
Pope.  The  Pope  had  been  supported  there  by  a  French 
garrison.  This  was  withdrawn  as  a  result  of  the  battle 
of  Sedan,  and  the  troops  of  Victor  Emmanuel  attacked 
the  Pope's  own  troops,  defeated  them  after  a  slight  re- 
sistance, and  entered  Rome  on  the  20th  of  September, 
1870.  The  unity  of  Italy  was  now  consummated  and 
Rome  became  the  capital  of  the  kingdom. 

A  more  important  consequence  of  the  war  was  the 
completion  of  the  unification  of  Germany,  and  the  crea- 
tion of  the  German  Empire.  Bismarck  had  desired  a 
war  with  France  as  necessary  to  complete  the  unity  of 
Germany.  Whether  necessary  or  not,  at  least  that  end 
was  now  secured.  During  the  war  negotiations  were  car- 
ried on  between  Prussia  and  the  South  German  states. 
Treaties  were  drawn  up  and  the  confederation  was 
widened  to  include  all  the  German  states.  On  January 
18,  187 1,  in  the  royal  palace  of  Versailles,  King  William  I 
was  proclaimed  German  Emperor. 

The  war  of  1866  had  resulted  in  the  expulsion  of 
Austria  from  Germany  and  from  Italy.  The  war  of 
1870  completed  the  unification  of  both  countries.  Berlin 
became  the  capital  of  a  federal  Empire,  Rome  of  a  unified 
Kingdom.  The  war  of  1870  also  created  the  Third 
Republic. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE 

The  Franco-German  War  completed  the  unification  of 
Germany.  The  Empire  was  proclaimed  January  i8,  187 1, 
in  the  old  capital  of  the  French  monarchy.  The  consti- 
tution of  the  new  state  was  adopted  immediately  after  the 
close  of  the  war  and  went  into  force  April  16,  1871.  In 
most  respects  it  was  simply  the  constitution  of  the  North 
German  Confederation  of  1867.  The  name  of  Confedera- 
tion gave  way  to  that  of  Empire  and  the  name  of  Emperor 
was  substituted  for  that  of  President.  But  the  Empire 
was  a  confederation,  consisting  of  twenty-five  states  and 
one  Imperial  Territory,  Alsace-Lorraine.  The  King  of 
Prussia  was  ipso  facto  German  Emperor.  The  legislative 
power  was  vested  in  the  Bundesrath,  or  Federal  Council, 
and  the  Reichstag.  The  Emperor  had  the  right  to  declare 
war  with  the  consent  of  the  Bundesrath,  he  was  to  be 
commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy,  to  have  charge 
of  foreign  affairs  and  to  make  treaties,  subject  to  the 
limitation  that  certain  kinds  of  treaties  must  be  ratified  by 
Parliament.  He  was  to  be  assisted  by  a  Chancellor,  whom 
he  was  to  appoint,  and  whom  he  might  remove,  who 
was  not  to  be  responsible  to  Parliament  but  to  him  alone. 
Under  the  Chancellor  were  various  secretaries  of  state, 
.who  simply  administered  departments,  but  who  did  not 
form  a  cabinet  responsible  to  Parliament. 

33 


34        FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Laws  were  to  be  made  by  the  Bundesrath  and  the 
Reichstag.  The  Bundesrath  was  the  most  powerful  body 
in  the  Empire.  It  possessed  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial  functions  and  was  a  sort  of  diplomatic  assembly. 
It  represented  the  states,  that  is,  the  rulers  of  the  twenty- 
five  states  of  which  the  Empire  consisted.  It  was  to  be 
composed  of  delegates  appointed  by  the  rulers.  Unlike 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  the  states  of  Germany 
were  not  to  be  represented  equally  in  the  Bundesrath  but 
most  unequally.  There  were  to  be  fifty-eight  members. 
Of  these  Prussia  was  to  have  seventeen,  Bavaria  six, 
Saxony  and  Wiirtemberg  four  each ;  others  three  or  two ; 
and  seventeen  of  the  states  were  to  have  only  one  apiece. 
The  Bundesrath  was  practically  the  old  Diet  of  Frank- 
fort carried  over  into  the  new  system,  with  certain 
changes  rendered  necessary  by  the  intervening  history. 
The  members  were  to  be  really  diplomats,  representing 
the  numerous  sovereigns  of  Germany.  They  were  not  to 
vote  individually,  but  each  state  was  to  vote  as  a  unit  and 
as  the  ruler  might  instruct.  Thus  the  seventeen  votes  of 
Prussia  were  to  be  cast  always  as  a  unit,  on  one  side  or 
the  other,  and  as  the  King  of  Prussia  should  direct.  The 
Bundesrath  was  not  to  be  a  deliberative  body,  because  its 
members  were  to  vote  according  to  instructions  from  the 
home  governments.  Its  members  were  not  to  be  free  to 
vote  as  they  might  see  fit.  It  was  in  reality  an  assembly 
of  the  sovereigns  of  Germany.  Its  powers  were  very 
extensive.  It  was  the  most  important  element  of  the 
legislature,  as  most  legislation  began  in  it,  its  consent  was 
necessary  to  all  legislation,  and  every  law  passed  by  the 
Reichstag  must  after  that  be  submitted  to  it  for  ratifica- 
tion or  rejection.     It  was  therefore  the  chief  source  of 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  35 

legislation.  Representing  the  princes  of  Germany,  it  was 
a  thoroughly  monarchical  institution,  a  bulwark  of  the 
monarchical  spirit.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  has  generally 
been  controlled  by  Prussia,  although  there  have  been  a 
few  cases  since  1871  in  which  the  will  of  Prussia  has  been 
overridden.    Its  proceedings  were  secret. 

The  Reichstag  was  the  only  popular  element  in  the 
Empire,  It  consisted  of  397  members,  elected  for  a  term 
of  five  years  by  the  voters,  that  is,  by  men  twenty-five 
years  of  age  or  older.  The  powers  of  the  Reichstag  were 
inferior  to  those  of  most  of  the  other  popular  chambers 
of  Europe.  It  neither  made  nor  unmade  ministries. 
While  it,  in  conjunction  with  the  Bundesrath,  voted  the 
appropriations,  certain  ones,  notably  those  for  the  army, 
were  voted  for  a  period  of  years.  Its  consent  was  re- 
quired for  new  taxes,  whereas  taxes  previously  levied 
continue  to  be  collected  without  the  consent  of  Parliament 
being  secured  again.  The  matters  on  which  Parliament 
might  legislate  were  those  concerning  army,  navy,  com- 
merce, tariffs,  railways,  postal  system,  telegraphs,  civil  and 
criminal  law.  On  matters  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Empire  each  state  might  legislate  as  it  chose.  In 
reality  the  Reichstag  was  little  more  than  an  advisory 
body,  with  the  power  of  veto  of  new  legislation.  The 
mainspring  of  power  was  elsewhere — in  the  Bundesrath 
and  in  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia. 

The  German  Empire  was  unique  among  federal  govern- 
ments in  that  it  was  a  confederation  of  monarchical 
states,  which,  moreover,  were  very  unequal  in  size  and 
population,  ranging,  in  19 14,  from  Prussia  with  a  popu- 
lation of  40,000,000,  and  covering  two-thirds  of  the 
territory  of  Germany,  down  to  Schaumburg-Lippe,  with 


36  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

a  population  of  45,000.  Three  members  of  the  Empire 
were  republics :  Liibeck,  Bremen,  and  Hamburg.  The 
rest  were  monarchies.  All  had  constitutions  and  leeis- 
latures,  more  or  less  liberal.  This  confederation  differed 
from  other  governments  of  its  class  in  that  the  states 
were  of  unequal  voting  power  in  both  houses,  one  state 
largely  preponderating,  Prussia,  a  fact  explained  by  its 
great  size,  its  population,  and  the  importance  of  its  his- 
toric role. 

The  chief  representative  of  the  Emperor  was  the  Chan- 
cellor. The  Chancellor  was  not  like  the  Prime  Minister 
of  England,  simply  one  of  the  ministers.  He  stood  dis- 
tinct from  and  above  all  federal  officials.  There  was  no 
imperial  cabinet  in  the  German  Empire,  and  cabinet,  or 
what  is  correctly  called  responsible,  government  did  not 
exist.  The  Chancellor  was  appointed  by  the  Emperor, 
was  removable  by  the  Emperor,  was  responsible  to  the 
Emperor,  and  was  not  responsible  to  either  Bundesrath 
or  Reichstag.  Either  or  both  assemblies  might  vote  down 
his  proposals,  might  even  vote  lack  of  confidence.  It 
would  make  no  difference  to  him.  He  would  not  resign. 
The  only  support  he  needed  was  that  of  the  Emperor. 

There  were  other  so-called  ministers,  such  as  those  of 
foreign  affairs,  of  the  interior,  of  education.  But  these 
were  not  like  the  members  of  the  cabinet  of  the  United 
States  or  of  England.  They  were  subordinates  of  the 
Chancellor,  carrying  out  his  will,  and  not  for  a  moment 
thinking  of  resigning  because  of  any  adverse  vote  in  the 
popular  house,  the  Reichstag.  The  powers  of  the  Chan- 
cellor were  great,  but  as  his  tenure  was  absolutely  de- 
pendent upon  the  favor  of  the  Emperor  this  really  meant 
that  the  power  of  the  Emperor  was  great  and  was  irre- 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  37 

sponsible.  The  Chancellor  might  be  an  imposing  figure  in 
the  state,  as  Bismarck  was ;  he  might  be  a  mere  agent  of 
the  Emperor,  as  all  of  Bismarck's  successors  were — for 
the  reason  that  William  II,  unlike  William  I,  intended  to 
rule  and  really  to  be  the  Chancellor  himself. 

This  was  the  most  important  characteristic  of  the 
German  Empire.  Unlike  England,  France,  Italy,  Bel- 
gium, Holland,  the  Scandinavian  states,  the  cabinet  system 
of  government  did  not  exist  in  Germany.  The  executive 
was  not  subject  to  the  legislative  power;  ministers  might 
not  be  turned  out  of  office  by  adverse  majorities.  Ger- 
many was  a  constitutional  state,  in  the  sense  that  it  had  a 
written  constitution.  It  was  not  a  parliamentary  state. 
Parliament  did  not  have  the  controlling  voice  in  the  state. 
The  monarchs,  and  particularly  the  monarch  of  Prussia, 
had  that.  This  was  Bismarck's  great  achievement.  His 
victory  over  the  Prussian  Parliament  had  this  effect,  that 
it  checked  the  growth  of  responsible  government  in 
Germany.  So  far  as  ensuring  self-government,  or  a  large 
measure  of  it,  to  the  people  of  Germany  was  concerned, 
the  constitution,  largely  the  work  of  Bismarck,  was  much 
inferior  to  the  constitution  framed  by  the  Parliament  of 
Frankfort  in  1848. 

The  Emperor  gained  his  great  power  from  the  fact  that 
he  was  King  of  Prussia.  He  was  Emperor  because  he 
was  King.  As  King  he  had  very  extensive  functions. 
His  functions  as  Emperor  and  King  were  so  connected 
that  it  was  not  easy  to  distinguish  them.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  the  King  of  Prussia  was  very  nearly  an  absolute 
monarch.  The  Prussian  Parliament  was  far  less  likely 
to  oppose  his  will  than  was  the  Imperial  Parliament  which, 
itself,  has  shown  only  slight  independence  since  1871. 


38  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

There  was  no  parliamentary  government  in  Prussia  any 
more  than  there  was  in  the  Empire. 

Since  1871,  Germany  has  had  three  Emperors,  William 
I  (1871-88),  Frederick  III  (March  9-June  15,  1888), 
and  William  II,  from  1888  to  1918. 

The  history  since  1871  naturally  falls  into  two  periods, 
which  are  in  many  respects  well  defined,  the  reign  of 
William  I  and  the  reign  of  William  II.  During  the  former 
the  real  ruler  was  Prince  Bismarck,  the  Chancellor,  whose 
position  was  one  of  immense  prestige  and  authority. 
Having  in  nine  years  made  the  King,  whom  he  found 
upon  the  point  of  abdicating,  the  most  powerful  ruler  in 
Europe,  and  having  given  Germans  unity,  he  remained 
the  chief  figure  in  the  state  twenty  years  longer  until  his 
resignation  in  1890.  During  the  latter  period,  the  reign 
of  William  II,  the  Emperor  was  the  real  head  of  the 
government. 

The  Kulturkampf 

No  sooner  was  the  new  Empire  established  than  it  was 
torn  by  a  fierce  religious  conflict  that  lasted  many  years, 
the  so-called  Kulturkampf,  or  "  war  in  defense  of  civiliza- 
tion," a  contest  between  the  State  and  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  The  wars  with  Austria  and  France  engendered 
animosity  in  the  field  of  religion  as  they  were  victories  of 
a  Protestant  state  over  two  strongly  Catholic  powers. 
The  loss  of  the  Pope's  temporal  power  in  1870  embittered 
many  Catholics  still  further  and  a  party  was  formed  in 
Germany,  the  Center,  to  work  for  the  restoration  of  the 
temporal  power  and  for  the  general  interests  of  the 
Church.  In  the  first  elections  to  the  Reichstag  this  party 
jyon  sixty-three  votes.     Bismarck  did  not  like  this  ap- 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  39 

pearance  of  a  clerical  party  in  the  political  arena.  He 
was  of  the  opinion  that  the  Church  should  keep  out  of 
politics.  Moreover,  he  decidedly  objected  to  what  he 
understood  to  be  the  claims  of  the  Church  that  in  certain 
matters,  which  he  regarded  as  belonging  exclusively  to  the 
State,  the  Church  was  superior  to  the  secular  authority 
and  had  the  primary  right  to  the  allegiance  of  Catholics. 

The  immediate  cause  of  the  Kulturkampf  was  a  quarrel 
among  Catholics  themselves.  The  proclamation  by  the 
Vatican  Council  in  1870  of  the  new  dogma  of  papal 
infallibility  had  been  opposed  in  the  Council  by  the 
German  bishops.  But  they  and  the  priests  of  Germ'any 
were  now  required  to  subscribe  to  it.  The  large  majority 
did,  but  some  refused.  The  latter  called  themselves  Old 
Catholics,  proclaiming  their  adherence  to  the  Church  as 
hitherto  defined,  but  rejecting  this  addition  to  their  creed 
as  false.  The  bishops  who  accepted  it  demanded  that  the 
Old  Catholics  should  be  removed  from  their  positions  in 
the  universities  and  schools.  The  government  of  Prussia 
refused  to  remove  them.  A  religious  war  was  shortly  in 
progress  which  grew  more  bitter  each  year.  First  the 
Imperial  Parliament  forbade  the  religious  orders  to  en- 
gage in  teaching;  then,  in  1872,  it  expelled  the  Jesuits 
from  Germany.  Of  all  legislation  enacted  during  this 
struggle  the  Falk  or  May  Laws  of  the  Prussian  legislature 
were  the  most  important  (passed  in  May  of  three  suc- 
cessive years,  1873,  1874,  1875).  Bismarck  supported 
them  on  the  ground  that  the  contest  was  political,  not 
religious,  that  there  must  be  no  state  within  the  State, 
no  power  considering  itself  superior  to  the  established 
authorities.  He  also  believed  that  the  whole  movement 
was  conducted  by  those  opposed  to  German  unity.    Any- 


40  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

thing  that  imperiled  that  unity  must  be  crushed.  These 
May  Laws  gave  the  State  large  powers  over  the  education 
and  appointment  of  the  clergy.  They  forbade  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  to  intervene  in  any  way  in  civil  affairs, 
or  to  coerce  citizens  or  officials;  they  required  that  all 
clergymen  should  pass  the  regular  state  examination  of 
the  preparatory  school,  and  should  study  theology  for 
three  years  at  a  state  university;  that  all  Catholic  semi- 
naries should  be  subject  to  state  inspection.  They  also 
established  control  over  the  appointment  and  dismissal 
of  priests.  A  law  was  passed  making  civil  marriage  com- 
pulsory. This  was  to  reduce  the  power  that  priests  could 
exercise  by  refusing  to  marry  a  Catholic  and  a  Protestant, 
and  now  even  Old  Catholics.  Religious  orders  were  sup- 
pressed. 

Against  these  laws  the  Catholics  indignantly  protested. 
The  Pope  declared  them  null  and  void ;  the  clergy  refused 
to  obey  them,  and  the  faithful  rallied  to  the  support  of 
the  clergy.  To  enforce  them  the  government  resorted  to 
fines,  imprisonment,  deprivation  of  salary,  expulsion  from 
the  country.  The  conflict  spread  everywhere,  into  little 
villages,  as  well  as  into  the  cities,  into  the  universities 
and  schools.  It  dominated  politics  for  several  years.  The 
national  life  was  much  disturbed,  yet  the  end  was  not 
accomplished.  In  the  elections  of  1877  ^^^  Center  suc- 
ceeded in  returning  ninety-two  members,  and  was  the 
largest  party  in  the  Reichstag.  It  was  evident  that  the 
policy  was  a  failure.  Other  questions  were  becoming 
prominent,  of  an  economic  and  social  character,  and  Bis- 
marck wished  to  be  free  to  handle  them.  Particularly 
requiring  attention,  in  his  opinion,  and  that  of  William  I, 
jvas  a  new  and  most  menacing  party,  the  Socialist.   Bis- 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  41 

marck  therefore  prepared  to  retreat.  The  death  of  Pius 
IX  in  1878,  and  the  election  of  Leo  XIII,  a  more  con- 
ciliatory and  diplomatic  Pope,  facilitated  the  change  of 
policy.  The  anti-clerical  legislation  was  gradually  re- 
pealed, except  that  concerning  civil  marriage.  In  return 
for  the  measures  surrendered  Bismarck  gained  the  support 
of  the  Center  for  laws  which  he  now  had  more  at  heart. 
The  only  permanent  result  of  this  religious  conflict  was 
the  strengthening  of  the  Center  or  Catholic  party,  which 
has  been,  during  most  of  the  time  since,  the  strongest 
party  in  this  Protestant  country. 

Bismarck  and  Socialism 

It  was  in  1878  that  Bismarck  turned  his  attention  to  the 
Socialist  party,  which  had  for  some  time  been  growing, 
and  now  seemed  menacing.  That  party  was  founded  by 
Ferdinand  Lassalle,  a  Socialist  of  1848,  much  influenced 
by  the  French  school  of  that  day.  The  party,  originally 
appearing  in  1848,  was  shortly  broken  up  by  persecution 
and  did  not  reappear  until  1863.  ^^  ^^^3  Lassalle 
founded  a  journal  called  the  Social  Democrat.  In  op- 
position to  this  party  a  somewhat  different  Socialist  group 
was  led  by  Karl  Marx.  These  two  groups  were  rivals 
until  1875,  when  a  fusion  was  effected  and  the  party 
platform  was  adopted  at  Gotha.  This  platform  de- 
nounced the  existing  organization  of  the  economic  sys- 
tem, the  ownership  of  the  means  of  production  solely 
by  the  capitalist  class  and  in  its  interest;  it  demanded 
that  the  state  should  own  them  and,  should  conduct 
industries  in  the  interest  of  society,  the  largest  part 
of    which  consists  of  laborers,  and  that  the  products 


42  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  labor  should  be  justly  distributed;  it  aimed  at  a 
free  state  and  a  socialistic  society.  Needless  to  say, 
Germany  was  neither  at  that  time.  That  Germany 
might  be  a  free  state  the  Socialists  demanded  universal 
suffrage  for  all  over  twenty  years  of  age,  women  as  well 
as  men,  secret  ballot,  freedom  of  the  press,  freedom  of 
association,  and  indeed  the  greatest  extension  of  political 
rights  in  a  democratic  direction,  free  and  compulsory 
education,  and  certain  immediate  economic  and  social  re- 
forms, such  as  a  progressive  income  tax,  a  normal  work- 
ing day,  and  a  free  Sunday,  prohibition  of  child  labor 
and  of  all  forms  of  labor  by  women  which  were  dangerous 
to  health  or  morality,  laws  for  the  protection  of  the  life 
and  health  of  workingmen  and  for  the  inspection  of  mines 
and  factories.  In  1871  the  Socialists  elected  two  mem- 
bers to  the  Reichstag,  three  years  later  their  representation 
increased  to  nine,  and  in  1877  to  twelve.  Their  popular 
votes  were:  in  187 1,  124,655;  in  1874,  351,952;  and  in 
1877,  493.288. 

The  steady  growth  of  this  party  aroused  the  alarm  of 
the  ruling  classes  of  Germany,  which  stood  for  mon- 
archy, aristocracy,  the  existing  economic  system,  while 
its  aims  were  destructive  of  all  these.  Bismarck  had  long 
hated  the  Socialists,  as  was  natural  considering  his  train- 
ing and  environment,  and  considering  also  the  declarations 
of  the  Socialists  themselves.  Their  leaders,  Liebknecht 
and  Bebel,  had  opposed  the  North  German  Confederation, 
the  war  with  France,  the  annexation  of  Alsace  and  Lor- 
raine. The  Socialists  expressed  openly  and  freely  their 
entire  opposition  to  the  existing  order  in  Germany.  It 
was  only  a  question  of  time  when  they  must  clash  vio- 
lently with  the  man  who  had  helped  so  powerfully  to 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  43 

create  that  order,  and  whose  life  work  henceforth  was  to 
consolidate  it.  Again,  the  Socialist  party  was  radically 
democratic,  and  Bismarck  hated  democracy.  A  conflict 
between  men  representing  the  very  opposite  poles  of 
opinion  was  inevitable.  Bismarck  determined  to  crush 
the  Socialists  once  for  all.  He  would  use  two  methods; 
one  stern  repression  of  Socialist  agitation,  'the  other 
amelioration  of  the  conditions  of  the  working  class, 
conditions  which  alone,  he  believed,  caused  them  to  listen 
to  the  false  and  deceptive  doctrines  of  the  Socialist 
leaders. 

First  came  repression.  In  October,  1878,  a  law  of 
great  severity,  intended  to  stamp  out  completely  all 
Socialist  propaganda,  was  passed  by  the  Imperial  Parlia- 
ment. It  forbade  all  associations,  meetings,  and  publica- 
tions having  for  their  object  "  the  subversion  of  the  social 
order,"  or  in  which  "  socialistic  tendencies  "  should  ap- 
pear. It  gave  the  police  large  powers  of  interference, 
arrest,  and  expulsion  from  the  country.  Martial  law 
might  be  proclaimed  where  desirable,  which  meant  that,  as 
far  as  Socialists  were  concerned,  the  ordinary  courts 
would  cease  to  protect  individual  liberties.  Practically  a 
mere  decree  of  a  police  official  would  suffice  to  expel  from 
Germany  anyone  suspected  or  accused  of  being  a  Socialist. 
This  law  was  enacted  for  a  period  of  four  years.  It  was 
later  twice  renewed  and  remained  in  force  until  1890.  It 
was  vigorously  applied.  According  to  statistics  furnished 
by  the  Socialists  themselves,  1,400  publications  were  sup- 
pressed, 1,500  persons  were  imprisoned,  900  banished, 
during  these  twelve  years.  One  might  not  read  the  works 
of  Lassalle,  for  instance,  even  in  a  public  library. 

This  law,  says  a  biographer  of  Bismarck,  is  very  dis- 


44  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

appointing.     "We  find  the  Government  again  having 
recourse  to  the  same  means  for  checking  and  guarding 
opinion  which  Metternich  had  used  fifty  years  before."  * 
It  was,  moreover,  an  egregious  failure.    For  twelve  years 
the  Socialists  carried  on  their  propaganda  in  secret.     It 
became  evident  that  their  power  lay  in  their  ideas  and  in 
the  economic  conditions  of  the  working  classes,  rather 
than  in  formal  organizations,  which  might  be  broken  up. 
A  paper  was  published  for  them  in  Switzerland  and  every 
week  thousands  of  copies  found  their  way  into  the  hands 
of  workingmen  in  Germany,  despite  the  utmost  vigilance 
of  the  police.    Persecution  in  their  case,  as  in  that  of  the 
Roman  Catholics,  only  rendered  the  party  more  resolute 
and  active.    At  first  it  seemed  that  the  law  would  realize 
the  aims  of  its  sponsors,  for  in  the  elections  of  1881,  the 
first  after  its  passage,  the  Socialist  vote  fell  from  about 
493,000  to  about  312,000.    But  in  1884  it  rose  to  549,000; 
in  1887  to  763,000;  in  1890  to  1,427,000,  resulting  in 
the  election  of  thirty-five  members  to  the  Reichstag.     In 
that  year  the  laws  were  not  renewed.    The  Socialists  came 
out  of  their  contest  with  Bismarck  with  a  popular  and 
parliamentary  vote  increased  threefold.    Bismarck,  true  to 
his  fundamental  belief  that  difficult  opponents  are  best 
put  down  by  force,  not  won  by  persuasion,  had  attempted 
here,  as  in  the  Kulturkampf,  to  settle  an  annoying  ques- 
tion by  arbitrary  and  despotic  measures  enforced  ruth- 
lessly by  the  police  and  sacrificing  what  are  regarded  in 
many  other  countries  as  the  most  precious  rights  of  the 
individual. 

But  he  had  at  no  time  intended  to  rest  content  with 
merely  repressive  measures.     He  had  also  intended  to 
'  Headlam,  Bismarck,  409. 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  45 

win  the  working  classes  away  from  the  Socialist  party 
by  enacting  certain  laws  favoring  them,  by  trying  to  con- 
vince them  that  the  State  was  their  real  benefactor  and 
was  deeply  interested  in  their  welfare. 

The  method  by  which  Bismarck  proposed  to  improve 
the  condition  of  the  working  class  was  by  an  elaborate 
and  comprehensive  system  of  insurance  against  the  mis- 
fortunes and  vicissitudes  of  life,  against  sickness,  acci- 
dent, old  age,  and  incapacity.  It  was  his  desire  that  any 
workingman  incapacitated  in  any  of  these  ways  should 
not  be  exposed  to  the  possibility  of  becoming  a  pauper, 
but  should  receive  a  pension  from  the  state.  His  policy 
was  called  State  Socialism.  His  proposals  met  with 
vehement  opposition,  both  in  the  Reichstag  and  among 
influential  classes  outside.  It  was  only  slowly  that  he 
carried  them  through,  the  Sickness  Insurance  Law  in 
1883,  the  Accident  Insurance  Laws  in  1884  and  1885,  and 
the  Old  Age  Insurance  Law  in  1889.  These  laws  are 
very  complicated  and  cannot  be  described  here  at  length. 

Such  was  Bismarck's  contribution  to  the  solution  of  the 
social  question,  which  grew  to  such  commanding  im- 
portance as  the  nineteenth  century  wore  on.  In  this 
legislation  Bismarck  was  a  pioneer.  His  ideas  have  been 
studied  widely  in  other  countries,  and  his  example  fol- 
lowed in  some. 

The  Socialists  did  not  cooperate  with  him  in  the  pas- 
sage of  these  laws,  which  they  denounced  as  entirely 
inadequate  to  solve  the  social  evils,  as  only  a  slight  step 
in  the  right  direction.  Nor  did  Bismarck  wish  their  sup- 
port. They  were  Social  Democrats.  Democracy  he 
hated.  Socialism  of  the  state,  controlled  by  a  powerful 
monarch,  was  one  thing.     Socialism  carried  through  by 


46  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

the  people  believing  in  a  democratic  government,  opposed 
to  the  existing  order  in  government  and  society,  a  very 
different  thing.  At  the  very  moment  that  Bismarck  se- 
cured the  passage  of  the  Accident  Insurance  Bill  he  also 
demanded  the  renewal  of  the  law  against  the  Socialists. 
His  prophecy,  that  if  these  laws  were  passed  the  Socialists 
would  sound  their  bird  call  in  vain,  has  not  been  fulfilled. 
That  party  has  grown  greatly  and  almost  uninterruptedly 
ever  since  he  began  his  war  upon  it. 

Bismarck  and  the  Policy  of  Protection 

In  1879,  Bismarck  brought  about  a  profound  change 
in  the  financial  and  industrial  policy  of  Germany  by  in- 
ducing Parliament  to  abandon  the  policy  of  a  low  tariff, 
and  comparative  free  trade,  and  to  adopt  a  system  of 
high  tariff  and  pronounced  protection.  His  purposes  were 
twofold.  Pie  wished  to  increase  the  revenue  of  the  Em- 
pire and  to  encourage  native  industries.  In  adopting  the 
principle  of  protection  he  was  not  influenced,  he  asserted, 
by  the  theories  of  economists,  but  by  his  own  observation 
of  facts.  He  observed  that,  while  England  was  the  only 
nation  following  a  policy  of  free  trade,  France  and 
Austria  and  Russia  and  the  United  States  were  pro- 
nounced believers  in  protection  and  that  it  was  too  much 
to  ask  that  Germany  should  permanently  remain  the  dupe 
of  an  amiable  error.  He  said  that  owing  to  her  low 
tariff  Germany  had  been  the  dumping  ground  for  the 
overproduction  of  other  countries.  Now  industries  must 
be  protected  that  they  might  flourish  and  that  they  might 
have  at  least  the  home  market.  As  this  policy  had  proved 
successful  in  other  countries,  notably  in  the  United  States, 
he  urged  that  Germany  follow  their  example. 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  47 

Bismarck  won  the  day,  though  not  without  difficulty. 
Germany  entered  upon  a  period  of  protection,  which, 
growing  higher  and  applied  to  more  and  more  industries, 
has  continued  ever  since.  Bismarck  believed  that  Ger- 
many must  become  rich  in  order  to  be  strong;  that  she 
could  only  become  rich  by  manufactures;  and  that  she 
could  have  manufactures  only  by  giving  them  protection. 
The  system  was  worked  out  gradually  and  piecemeal,  as 
he  could  not  carry  his  whole  plan  at  once.  By  means  of 
the  tariff  Bismarck  wished  to  assure  Germans  the  home 
market.  Not  only  was  this  largely  accomplished,  but  by 
its  means  the  foreign  market  also  was  widened.  By  of- 
fering concessions  to  foreign  nations  for  concessions  from 
them,  Germany  gained  for  her  manufactured  products 
an  entrance  into  many  other  countries,  which  had  been 
denied  them  before.  The  prodigious  expansion  of  Ger- 
man industry  after  1880  is  generally  regarded  in  Germany 
as  a  vindication  of  this  policy. 

Acquisition  of  Colonies 
One  of  the  important  features  of  the  closing  years  of 
Bismarck's  political  career  was  the  beginning  of  a  German 
colonial  empire.  In  his  earlier  years  Bismarck  did  not 
believe  in  Germany's  attempting  the  acquisition  of  col- 
onies. In  1871  he  refused  to  demand  as  prize  of  war  any 
of  the  French  colonial  possessions.  He  believed  that 
Germany  should  consolidate,  and  should  not  risk  in- 
curring the  hostility  of  other  nations  by  entering  upon 
the  path  of  colonial  rivalry.  But  colonies,  nevertheless, 
were  being  founded  under  the  spirit  of  private  initiative. 
Energetic  merchants  from  Hamburg  and  Bremen  estab- 
lished trading  stations  in  Africa,  and  the  islands  of  the 


48  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Pacific,  for  the  purpose  of  selling  their  goods  and  ac- 
quiring tropical  products,  such  as  cocoa,  coffee,  rubber, 
spices.  The  aid  of  the  Government  was  invoked  at 
various  times,  but  Bismarck  held  aloof.  The  interest 
aroused  in  the  exploits  of  these  private  companies  gave 
rise  towards  1880  to  a  definite  colonial  party  and  the 
formation  of  a  Colonial  Society,  which  has  since  become 
important. 

The  change  in  the  policy  of  the  Government,  however, 
from  one  of  aloofness  to  one  of  energetic  interest  in 
the  acquisition  of  colonies  was  largely  a  result  of  the 
adoption  of  the  policy  of  protection  and  active  govern- 
mental encouragement  of  manufactures  and  commerce. 
In  the  debate  on  the  tariff  bill  of  1879  Bismarck  said  that 
it  was  desirable  to  protect  manufactures,  that  thus  a 
greater  demand  for  labor  would  arise,  that  more  people 
could  live  in  Germany,  and  that  therefore  the  emigration 
which  had  for  years  drawn  tens  of  thousands  from  the 
country,  particularly  to  the  United  States,  would  be  de- 
creased. But  to  develop  manufactures  to  the  utmost, 
Germany  must  have  new  markets  for  her  products;  and 
here  colonies  would  be  useful.  In  1884  he  adopted  a 
vigorous  colonial  policy,  supporting  and  expanding  the 
work  of  the  private  merchants  and  travelers.  In  that 
year  Germany  seized  a  number  of  regions  in  Africa,  in 
the  southwest,  the  west,  and  the  east.  A  period  of 
diplomatic  activity  began,  leading  in  the  next  few  years  to 
treaties  with  England  and  other  powers,  resulting  in  the 
fixing  of  the  boundaries  of  the  various  claimants  to 
African  territory.  This  is  the  partition  of  Africa  de- 
scribed elsewhere.^     Germany  thus  acquired  a  scattered 

'  See  Chapter  IX. 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  49 

African  empire  of  great  size,  consisting  of  Kamerun, 
Togoland,  German  Southwest  Africa,  German  East 
Africa;  also  a  part  of  New  Guinea.  Later  some  of  the 
Samoan  Islands  came  into  her  possession,  and  in  1899 
she  purchased  the  Caroline  and  the  Ladrone  Islands, 
excepting  Guam,  from  Spain  for  about  four  million 
dollars. 

The  Triple  Alliance 

While  domestic  affairs  formed  the  chief  concern  of 
Bismarck  after  the  war  with  France,  yet  he  followed  the 
course  of  foreign  affairs  with  the  same  closeness  of 
attention  that  he  had  shown  before,  and  manipulated  them 
with  the  same  display  of  subtlety  and  audacity  that  had 
characterized  his  previous  diplomatic  career.  His  great 
achievement  in  diplomacy  in  these  years  was  the  for- 
mation of  the  Triple  Alliance,  an  achievement  directed, 
like  all  the  actions  of  his  career,  toward  the  consolidation 
and  exaltation  of  his  country.  The  origin  of  this  alliance 
is  really  to  be  found  in  the  Treaty  of  Frankfort,  which 
sealed  the  humiliation  of  France.  The  wresting  from 
France  of  Alsace  and  Lorraine  inevitably  rendered  that 
country  desirous  of  a  war  of  revenge,  of  a  war  for  their 
recovery.  This  remained  the  open  sore  of  Europe  after 
1 87 1,  occasioning  numerous,  incontestable,  and  wide- 
spread evils.  Firmly  resolved  to  keep  what  he  had  won, 
Bismarck's  chief  consideration  was  to  render  such  a  war 
hopeless,  therefore,  perhaps,  impossible.  France  must  be 
isolated  so  completely  that  she  would  not  dare  to  move. 
This  was  accomplished,  first  by  the  friendly  understand- 
ing brought  about  by  Bismarck  between  the  three  rulers  of 
eastern  Europe,  the  Emperors  of  Germany,  Russia,  and 


50  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Austria.  But  this  understanding  was  shattered  by  events 
in  the  Balkan  peninsula  during  the  years  from  1876  to 
1878.  In  the  Balkans,  Russia  and  Austria  were  rivals, 
and  their  rivalry  was  thrown  into  high  relief  at  the 
Congress  of  Berlin  over  which  Bismarck  presided. 
Russia,  unaided,  had  carried  on  a  war  with  Turkey,  and 
had  imposed  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano  upon  her  con- 
quered enemy,  only  to  find  that  Europe  would  not  rec- 
ognize that  treaty,  but  insisted  upon  its  revision  at  an 
international  congress,  and  at  that  congress  she  found 
Bismarck,  to  whom  she  had  rendered  inestimable  services 
in  the  years  so  critical  for  Prussia,  from  1863  to  1870, 
now  acting  as  the  friend  of  Austria,  a  power  which  had 
taken  no  part  in  the  conflict,  but  was  now  intent  upon 
drawing  chestnuts  from  the  fire  with  the  aid  of  the  Iron 
Chancellor.  The  Treaty  of  Berlin  was  a  humiliation  for 
Russia  and  a  striking  success  for  Austria,  her  rival, 
which  was  now  empowered  to  "  occupy "  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina.  No  wonder  that  the  Russian  Chancellor, 
Gortchakoff,  pronounced  the  Congress  of  Berlin  "  the 
darkest  episode  in  his  career,"  and  that  Alexander  II 
declared  that  "  Bismarck  had  forgotten  his  promises  of 
1870."  By  favoring  one  of  his  allies  Bismarck  had 
alienated  the  other.  In  this  fact  lay  the  germ  of  the  two 
great  international  combinations  of  the  future,  the  Triple 
and  Dual  Alliances,  factors  of  profound  significance  in 
the  recent  history  of  Europe. 

Of  these  the  first  in  order  of  creation  and  in  impor- 
tance was  the  Triple  Alliance.  Realizing  that  Russia  was 
mortally  offended  at  his  conduct,  and  that  the  friendly 
understanding  with  her  was  over,  Bismarck  turned  for 
compensation  to  a  closer  union  with  Austria,  and  con- 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  51 

eluded  a  treaty  with  her  October  7,  1879.  This  treaty- 
provided  that  if  either  Germany  or  Austria  were  attacked 
by  Russia  the  two  should  be  bound  "  to  lend  each  other 
reciprocal  aid  with  the  whole  of  their  military  power, 
and,  subsequently,  to  conclude  no  peace  except  conjointly 
and  in  agreement";  that  if  either  Germany  or  Austria 
should  be  attacked  by  another  power — as,  for  instance, 
France — the  ally  should  remain  neutral,  but  that  if  this 
enemy  should  be  aided  by  Russia,  then  Germany  and  Aus- 
tria should  act  together  with  their  full  military  force, 
and  should  make  peace  in  common.  Thus  this  Austro- 
German  Treaty  of  1879  established  a  defensive  alliance 
aimed  particularly  against  Russia,  to  a  lesser  degree 
against  France.  The  treaty  was  secret  and  was  not  pub- 
lished until  1887.  Meanwhile,  in  1882,  Italy  joined  the 
alliance,  irritated  at  France  because  of  her  seizure  the  year 
before  of  Tunis,  a  country  which  Italy  herself  had  coveted 
as  a  seat  for  colonial  expansion  but  which  Bismarck  had 
encouraged  France  to  take,  wishing  to  make  one  more 
enemy  for  France,  and  thus  to  force  that  enemy,  Italy, 
into  the  alliance,  highly  unnatural  in  many  ways,  with 
Austria,  her  old-time  enemy,  and  with  Germany.  Thus 
was  formed  the  Triple  Alliance.  The  text  of  that  alli- 
ance has  never  been  published,  but  its  purpose  and  char- 
acter may  probably  be  derived  from  that  of  the  Austro- 
German  Alliance,  which  was  now  expanded  to  include 
another  power.  The  alliance  was  made  for  a  period  of 
years,  but  was  constantly  renewed  and  remained  in  force 
until  1915.  It  was  a  defensive  alliance,  designed  to  as- 
sure its  territory  to  each  of  the  contracting  parties. 

Thus  was  created  a  combination  of  powers  which  dom- 
inated Central  Europe  from  the  Baltic  to   the  Mediter- 


52  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

ranean,  and  which  rested  on  a  mihtary  force  of  over 
two  million  men.  At  its  head  stood  Germany.  Europe 
entered  upon  a  period  of  German  leadership  in  interna- 
tional affairs  which  was  later  to  be  challenged  by  the 
rise  of  a  new  alliance,  that  of  Russia  and  France,  which 
for  various  reasons,  however,  was  slow  in  forming. 


The  Reign  of  William  II 

On  the  9th  of  March,  1888,  Emperor  William  I  died 
at  the  age  of  ninety-one.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  son, 
Frederick  III,  in  his  fifty-seventh  year.  The  new  Em- 
peror was  a  man  of  moderation,  of  liberalism  in  politics, 
an  admirer  of  the  English  Constitution.  It  is  supposed 
that,  had  he  lived,  the  autocracy  of  the  ruler  would  have 
given  way  to  a  genuine  parliamentary  system  like  that 
of  England,  and  that  an  era  of  greater  liberty  would 
have  been  inaugurated.  But  he  was  already  a  dying 
man,  ill  of  cancer  of  the  throat.  His  reign  was  one  of 
physical  agony  patiently  borne.  Unable  to  use  his  voice, 
he  could  only  indicate  his  wishes  by  writing  or  by  signs. 
The  reign  was  soon  over,  before  the  era  of  liberalism 
had  time  to  dawn.  Frederick  was  King  and  Emperor 
only  from  March  9  to  June  15,  1888. 

He  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  William  II.  The  new 
ruler  was  twenty-nine  years  of  age,  a  young  man  of  very 
active  mind,  of  fertile  imagination,  versatile,  ambitious, 
self-confident,  a  man  of  unusual  vigor.  In  his  earliest 
utterances,  the  new  sovereign  showed  his  enthusiasm  for 
the  army  and  for  religious  orthodoxy.  He  held  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  origin  of  his  power  with  medieval 
fervor,  expressing  it  with   frequency  and  in  dramatic 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  53 

fashion.  It  was  evident  that  a  man  of  such  a  character 
would  wish  to  govern,  and  not  simply  reign.  He  would 
not  be  willing  long  to  efface  himself  behind  the  imposing 
figure  of  the  great  Chancellor.  Bismarck  had  prophe- 
sied that  the  Emperor  would  be  his  own  Chancellor, 
yet  he  did  not  have  the  wisdom  to  resign  when  the  old 
Emperor  died,  and  to  depart  with  dignity.  He  clung 
to  power.  From  the  beginning  friction  developed  be- 
tween the  two.  They  thought  differently,  felt  differ- 
ently. The  fundamental  question  was,  who  should  rule 
in  Germany?  The  struggle  was  for  supremacy,  since 
there  was  no  way  in  which  two  persons  so  self-willed 
and  autocratic  could  divide  power.  As  Bismarck  stayed 
on  when  he  saw  that  his  presence  was  no  longer  desired, 
the  Emperor,  not  willing  to  be  overshadowed  by  so  com- 
manding and  illustrious  a  minister,  finally  demanded  his 
resignation  in  1890.  Thus  in  bitterness  and  humiliation 
ended  the  political  career  of  a  man  who,  according  to 
Bismarck  himself,  had  "  cut  a  figure  in  the  history  of 
Germany  and  Prussia."  He  lived  several  years  longer, 
dying  in  1898  at  the  age  of  eighty-three,  leaving  as  his 
epitaph,  "  A  faithful  servant  of  Emperor  William  I." 
Thus  vanished  from  view  a  man  who  will  rank  in 
history  as  a  great  diplomatist  and  sagacious  states- 
man. 

After  1890  the  personality  of  William  II  was  the 
decisive  factor  in  the  State.  His  chancellors  were,  in 
fact  as  well  as  in  theory,  his  servants,  carrying  out  the 
master's  wish.  Down  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War 
there  were  four:  Caprivi,  1890-94;  Hohenlohe,  1894- 
1900;  von  Billow,  1900-09,  and  Bethmann-Hollweg,  from 
July,  1909.     That  war  was  to  add  three  others  to  the 


54  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

list,  whose  terms  were  to  prove  exceedingly  brief, 
Michaelis,  Hertling,  and  Prince  Maximilian  of  Baden. 

The  extreme  political  tension  was  at  first  somewhat 
relieved  by  the  removal  of  Bismarck  from  the  scene,  by 
this  "  dropping  of  the  pilot,"  after  thirt3'-eight  years  of 
continuous  service.  The  early  measures  under  the  new 
regime  showed  a  liberal  tendency.  The  anti-Socialist 
laws,  expiring  in  1890,  were  not  renewed.  This  had 
been  one  of  the  causes  of  friction  between  the  Emperor 
and  the  Chancellor.  Bismarck  wished  them  renewed,  and 
their  stringency  increased.  The  Emperor  wished  to  try 
milder  methods,  hoping  to  undermine  the  Socialists  com- 
pletely by  further  measures  of  social  and  economic  ame- 
lioration, to  kill  them  with  kindness.  The  repressive  laws 
lapsing,  the  Socialists  reorganized  openly,  and  have  con- 
ducted an  aggressive  campaign  ever  since.  The  Emperor, 
soon  recognizing  the  futility  of  anodynes,  became  their 
bitter  enemy,  and  began  to  denounce  them  vehemently, 
but  no  new  legislation  was  passed  against  them,  although 
this  was  several  times  attempted. 

The  reign  of  William  II  was  notable  for  the  remarka- 
ble expansion  of  industry  and  commerce,  which  rendered 
Germany  the  redoubtable  rival  of  England  and  the  United 
States.  In  colonial  and  foreign  affairs  an  aggressive  pol- 
icy was  followed.  German  colonies  proved  of  little  im- 
portance, entailed  great  expense,  and  yielded  only  small 
returns.  But  the  desire  for  a  great  colonial  empire  be- 
came a  settled  policy  of  the  Government,  and  seized  the 
popular  imagination. 

Connected  with  the  growing  interest  of  Germany  in 
commercial  and  colonial  affairs  went  an  increasing  inter- 
est in  the  navy.     Strong  on  land  for  fifty  years,  Will- 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  55 

iam  II  desired  that  Germany  should  be  strong  on  the  sea, 
that  she  might  act  with  decision  in  any  part  of  the  world, 
that  her  diplomacy,  which  was  permeated  with  the  idea 
that  nothing  great  should  be  done  in  world  politics  any- 
where, in  Europe,  in  Asia,  in  Africa,  without  her  con- 
sent, might  be  supported  by  a  formidable  navy.  To  make 
that  fleet  powerful  was  a  constant  and  a  growing  pre- 
occupation of  the  Emperor. 

In  the  political  world  the  rise  of  the  Social  Democratic 
party  was  the  most  important  phenomenon.  It  repre- 
sented not  merely  a  desire  for  a  revolution  in  the  economic 
sphere,  it  also  represented  a  protest  against  the  auto- 
cratic government  of  the  ruler,  a  demand  for  democratic 
institutions.  While  Germany  had  a  constitution  and  a 
parliament,  the  monarch  was  invested  with  vast  power. 
Parliament  did  not  control  the  Government,  as  the  min- 
isters were  not  responsible  to  it.  There  was  freedom  of 
speech  in  Parliament,  but  practically  during  most  of  this 
reign  it  did  not  exist  outside.  Hundreds  of  men  have, 
during  the  past  twenty  years,  been  imprisoned  for  such 
criticisms  of  the  Government  as  in  other  countries  are 
the  current  coin  of  discussion.  This  is  the  crime  of  lese- 
majeste,  which,  as  long  as  it  exists,  prevents  a  free  politi- 
cal life.  The  growth  of  the  Social  Democratic  party  to 
some  extent  represented  mere  liberalism,  not  adherence 
to  the  economic  theory  of  the  Socialists.  It  was  the  great 
reform  and  opposition  party  of  Germany.  It  had,  in 
1907,  the  largest  popular  vote  of  any  party,  3,260,000.^ 
Yet  the  Conservatives,  with  less  than  1,500,000  votes, 
elected  in  1907  eighty-three  members  to  the  Reichstag  to 

'  In  191 2  the  Socialists  cast  4,250,000  votes  and  elected  110  mem- 
bers to  the  Reichstag,  thus  displacing  the  Center  as  the  largest  party 
in  that  body. 


56  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

the  forty-three  of  the  Socialists.  The  reason  was  this: 
The  electoral  districts  had  not  been  altered  since  they 
were  originally  laid  out  in  1869-71,  though  population 
has  vastly  shifted  from  country  to  city.  The  cities  have 
grown  rapidly  since  then,  and  it  is  in  industrial  centers 
that  the  Socialists  are  strongest.  Berlin,  with  a  popula- 
tion in  1 87 1  of  600,000,  had  six  members  in  the  Reichs- 
tag. It  still  had  only  that  number  in  1907,  although 
its  population  was  over  2,000,000,  and  although  it  would 
have  been  entitled  to  twenty  members  had  equal  electoral 
districts  existed.  These  the  Socialists  demanded,  but  for 
this  very  reason  the  Government  refused  the  demand. 
The  extreme  opponents  of  the  Social  Democrats  even 
urged  that  universal  suffrage,  guaranteed  by  the  Consti- 
tution, be  abolished,  as  the  only  way  to  crush  the  party. 
To  this  extreme  the  Government  did  not  dare  to  go. 

In  recent  years  several  questions  have  been  much  dis- 
cussed :  the  question  of  the  electoral  reform  in  Prussia ; 
of  the  redistribution  of  seats,  both  in  the  Prussian  Land- 
tag and  the  Imperial  Reichstag;  and  of  ministerial  re- 
sponsibility. 

Prussia  was  the  state  that  in  practice  ruled  the  German 
Empire.  This  was  what  was  intended  by  Bismarck  when 
he  drew  up  the  Constitution  of  the  Empire,  it  was  pre- 
cisely the  object  of  his  entire  policy.  The  Constitution 
was  based  on  the  two  chief  articles  of  Bismarck's  creed, 
the  power  of  the  monarch  and  the  ascendancy  of  Prussia. 
This  was  the  accepted  idea  of  the  governing  classes  down 
to  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  Prussia,  as  was  said  in  1914 
by  Prince  von  Billow,  the  most  important  Chancellor  of 
the  Empire  since  Bismarck,  "  Prussia  attained  her  great- 
ness as  a  country  of  soldiers  and  officials,  and  as  such  she 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  57 

was  able  to  accomplish  the  work  of  German  union ;  to  this 
day  she  is  still,  in  all  essentials,  a  state  of  soldiers  and 
officials."  The  governing  classes  were,  in  Prussia,  which, 
in  turn,  governed  Germany,  the  monarchy,  the  aristocracy, 
and  a  bureaucracy  of  military  and  civil  officials,  respon- 
sible to  the  King  alone.  The  determining  factor  in  the 
state  was  the  personality  of  the  King. 

Neither  the  Empire,  nor  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia,  was 
governed  by  democratic  institutions.  The  Kingdom 
lagged  far  behind  the  Empire,  and,  so  great  was  its 
power,  impeded  the  development  of  liberty  in  the  Em- 
pire. Prussia  in  1914  was  a  country  of  40,000,000  peo- 
ple. It  had  had  a  legislature  of  two  chambers  since 
1850,  and  the  lower  house  of  the  legislature  was  chosen 
by  universal  suffrage.  Every  Prussian  man  who  had 
attained  his  twenty-fifth  year  had  the  vote.  Was  Prus- 
sia, therefore,  a  democracy?  Not  exactly,  for  this  uni- 
versal suffrage  was  most  marvelously  manipulated.  The 
exercise  of  the  right  to  vote  was  so  arranged  that  the 
ballot  of  the  poor  man  was  practically  annihilated.  Uni- 
versal suffrage  was  rendered  illusory.  And  this  was  the 
way  it  was  done.  The  voters  were  divided  in  each  elec- 
toral district  into  three  classes  according  to  wealth.  The 
amount  of  taxes,  paid  by  the  district,  was  divided  into 
three  equal  parts.  Those  taxpayers  who  paid  the  first 
third  were  grouped  into  one  class ;  those,  more  numerous, 
who  paid  the  second  third,  into  another  class ;  those  who 
paid  the  remainder,  into  still  another  class.  The  result 
was  that  a  very  few  rich  men  were  set  apart  by  them- 
selves, the  less  rich  by  themselves,  and  the  poor  by  them- 
selves. Each  of  these  groups,  voting  separately,  elected 
an  equal  number  of  delegates  to  a  convention,  which  con- 


S8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

vention  chose  the  delegates  of  that  constituency  to  the 
lower  house  of  the  Prussian  Parliament. 

Thus  in  every  electoral  convention  two-thirds  of  the 
members  belonged  to  the  wealthy  or  well-to-do  class. 
There  was  no  chance  in  such  a  system  for  the  poor,  for 
the  masses.  This  system  gave  an  enormous  preponder- 
ance of  political  power  to  the  rich.  The  first  class  con- 
sisted of  very  few  men,  in  some  districts  of  only  one; 
the  second  was  sometimes  twenty  times  as  numerous,  the 
third  sometimes  a  hundred,  or  even  a  thousand  times. 
Thus,  though  every  man  had  the  suffrage  the  vote  of  a 
single  rich  man  might  have  as  great  weight  as  the  votes 
of  a  thousand  workingmen.  Universal  suffrage  was  thus 
manipulated  in  such  a  way  as  to  defeat  democracy  deci- 
sively and  to  consolidate  a  privileged  class  in  power  in 
the  only  branch  of  the  government  that  had  even  the 
appearance  of  being  of  popular  origin.  Bismarck,  no 
friend  of  liberalism,  once  characterized  this  electoral  sys- 
tem as  the  worst  ever  created.  Its  shrieking  injustice 
was  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  1900  the  Social  Demo- 
crats, who  actually  cast  a  majority  of  the  votes,  got  only 
seven  seats  out  of  nearly  400.  It  was  one  of  the  most 
undemocratic  systems  in  existence. 

In  1908  there  were  293,000  voters  in  the  first  class, 
1,065,240  in  the  second,  6,324,079  in  the  third.  The 
first  class  represented  4  per  cent,  the  second  14  per  cent, 
the  third  82  per  cent  of  the  population.  In  Cologne  the 
first  class  comprised  370  electors,  the  second  2,584,  while 
the  third  had  22,324.  The  first  class  chose  the  same 
number  of  electors  as  the  third.  Thus,  370  rich  men  had 
the  same  voting  capacity  as  22,324  proletarians.  In 
Saarbriicken  the  Baron  von  Stumm  formed  the  first  class 


uUSast  fraiw        16  Orecnwich, 


THE 

GERMAN  EMPIRE 

1914. 

Abbreviations: 
H.Briinsni'cb  "L.-Lifpe- 

>HA.n,'iisseMerLme.        H.-l.-ffeussyoMifferliM- 
SArSoM-Mz-niufff.  S.C.G:J«n'ft«»tt^^tf'«<*<fc 

HMrSaM.  Heiniiuien.         S  \\'.-Saa-»tuiuir. 
S,.LrS'diau/)iiurff-li/>pe.     S  RrStiwunifKudMadt 
_____  S.S:SdmanJ>un)-Scndn^tsii    W."  Waideck- 


tni/Uih  Mllrs. 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  59 

all  by  himself  and  announced  complacently  that  he  did 
not  suffer  from  his  isolation.  In  one  of  the  Berlin  dis- 
tricts Herr  Heffte,  a  manufacturer  of  sausages,  formed 
the  first  class. 

This  system  would  seem  to  be  outrageous  enough  by 
reason  of  its  monstrous  plutocratic  caste.  But  this  was 
not  all.  This  reactionary  edifice  was  appropriately 
crowned  by  another  device — oral  voting.  Neither  in  the 
primary  nor  the  secondary  voting  was  a  secret  ballot 
used.  Voting  was  not  even  by  a  written  or  printed  bal- 
lot, but  by  the  spoken  word.  Thus  everyone  exercised 
his  right  publicly  in  the  presence  of  his  superior  or  his 
patron  or  employer  or  his  equals  or  the  official  represen- 
tative of  the  King.  In  such  a  country  as  Prussia,  where 
the  police  were  notoriously  ubiquitous,  what  a  weapon 
for  absolutism !  The  great  landowners,  the  great  manu- 
facturers, the  State,  could  easily  bring  all  the  pressure 
they  desired  to  bear  upon  the  voter,  exercising  his 
\vretched  rudiment  of  political  power.  Needless  to  say, 
under  such  a  system  as  this  the  working  classes  were 
almost  entirely  unrepresented  in  the  Prussian  legislature. 

Again,  with  the  exception  of  a  thoroughly  insignifi- 
cant measure  passed  in  1906,  no  changes  were  made  in 
the  electoral  districts  of  Prussia  after  1858.  No  ac- 
count was  taken  of  the  changes  in  the  population  and 
there  were  consequently  great  disparities  between  the  va- 
rious districts.  Thus,  in  a  recent  election  in  the  Province 
of  East  Prussia,  the  actual  ratio  of  inhabitants  to  each 
deputy  was  63,000,  while  in  Berlin  it  was  170,000.  In 
one  election,  3,000,000  inhabitants  of  four  large  Prus- 
sian districts  returned  9  representatives,  while  three  other 
millions,  divided  among  forty  smaller  districts,  returned 


6o  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

66.  Naturally,  the  demand  grew  constantly  louder 
that  many  districts  should  be  partially  or  wholly 
disfranchised  or  merged  with  others,  and  that  other  dis- 
tricts should  receive  a  larger  representation.  No  at- 
tempt, however,  was  made  to  meet  this  demand. 

In  the  Empire,  also,  a  similar  problem  became  yearly 
more  acute.  In  1871,  Germany  was  divided  into  397 
constituencies  for  the  Reichstag.  That  number  remained 
the  same  henceforth  down  to  the  war  and,  indeed,  until 
the  Reichstag  disappeared  in  the  convulsions  of  the  clos- 
ing months  of  1918.  Not  a  single  district  gained  or  lost 
in  representation.  Yet  from  1871  to  19 14  the  popula- 
tion of  the  Empire  increased  from  about  forty-one  mil- 
lions to  over  sixty-seven  millions,  and  there  was  a  great 
shifting  in  population  from  the  country  to  the  cities. 
One  of  the  divisions  of  Berlin,  with  a  population  of 
697,ocx),  elected  one  representative,  whereas  the  petty 
principality  of  Waldeck,  with  a  population  of  59,000, 
elected  one.  The  851,000  voters  of  Greater  Berlin  re- 
turned eight  members;  the  same  number  of  voters  in 
fifty  of  the  smaller  constituencies  returned  forty-eight. 
A  reform  of  these  gross  inequalities  was  widely  de- 
manded, but  the  demand  passed  unheeded. 

Another  subject  much  discussed  during  the  later  years 
of  the  Empire  was  that  concerning  ministerial  respon- 
sibility. The  indiscretions  of  Emperor  William  II  made 
this  from  time  to  time  a  burning  question.  An  inter- 
view with  him,  in  which  he  spoke  with  great  freedom  of 
the  strained  relations  between  Germany  and  Great  Brit- 
ain, was  published  in  the  London  Telegraph  on  October 
28,  1908.  At  once  was  seen  a  phenomenon  not  wit- 
nessed in  Germany  since  the  founding  of  the  Empire. 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  6i 

There  was  a  violent  protest  against  the  irresponsible  ac- 
tions of  the  Emperor,  actions  subject  to  no  control,  and 
yet  easily  capable  of  bringing  about  a  war.  Newspa- 
pers of  all  shades  of  party  affiliation  displayed  a  free- 
dom of  utterance  and  of  censure  unparalleled  in  Germany. 
All  parties  in  the  Reichstag  expressed  their  emphatic  dis- 
approval. The  incident,  however,  was  not  sufficient  to 
bring  about  the  introduction  of  the  system  of  the  respon- 
sibility of  ministers  for  all  the  acts  of  the  monarch,  and 
the  control  of  the  ministry  by  the  majority  of  the  Reichs- 
tag; in  short,  the  parliamentary  system  in  its  essential 
feature. 

Neither  in  the  Empire,  nor  in  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia, 
nor  in  any  of  the  other  states  that  composed  the  Empire, 
did  the  elected  chamber  control  the  Government.  In 
every  case  the  Prince  had  an  absolute  veto.  Where  there 
were  second  chambers,  as  in  many  of  the  states,  they 
were  not  elected  by  the  voters,  but  were  either  based 
on  heredity  or  on  appointment  by  the  ruler  or  by  certain 
narrow  organizations.  In  any  case  the  second  chambers 
were  a  bulwark  of  a  privileged  class.  And  in  Prussia,  as 
we  have  seen,  even  the  so-called  popular  house  was  merely 
another  name  for  a  privileged  class.  Neither  in  the  Em- 
pire nor  in  the  individual  states  were  the  ministers  con- 
trolled by  the  popular  assemblies.  The  assemblies  might 
vote  a  lack  of  confidence  as  often  as  they  felt  like  it. 
The  ministers  would  go  right  on  as  long  as  the  Emperor, 
King,  Grand  Duke,  or  Prince  desired.  In  none  of  the 
German  states  could  the  constitution  be  amended  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  sovereign  of  that  state.  The  con- 
stitution of  the  Empire  could  not  be  amended  without 
the  consent  of  one  man,  William  II,  for  a  constitutional 


62  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

amendment  must  be  passed  not  only  by  the  Reichstag 
but  by  the  Bundesrath,  and  the  constitution  provided  that 
no  amendment  could  pass  the  Bundesrath  if  fourteen 
votes  were  cast  against  it.  In  that  body  Prussia  had 
seventeen  votes  and  those  votes  were  cast  as  the  King 
of  Prussia  directed.  If  every  individual  in  Germany 
except  this  one,  and  including  the  other  Kings  and  Dukes, 
had  desired  a  change  in  the  constitution  they  could  not 
have  secured  it  if  William  II  said  "  No  " ! 

The  power  of  the  Prussian  crown  was  virtually  abso- 
lute— "absolutism  under  constitutional  forms,"  as  Ru- 
dolph Gneist,  once  considered  in  Germany  a  great  author- 
ity on  public  law,  said  years  ago.  In  the  economic  sphere 
Germany  was  enterprising,  progressive,  successful,  highly 
modern :  in  the  intellectual  sphere  she  was  active  and 
productive;  but  in  the  political  sphere  she  was  in  a  state 
of  arrested  development.  And  it  had  been  the  amazing 
triumphs  of  Bismarck,  which  rested  on  force,  that  had 
caused  the  arrest.  German  legislatures  were  impotent 
and  ineffective.  For  all  practical  purposes  the  Reichstag 
was  merely  a  debating  club,  and  a  debating  club  that  had 
no  power  of  seeing  that  its  will  was  carried  out.  As 
late  as  January,  1914,  Dr.  Friedrich  Naumann,  of  "  Mid- 
dle Europe  "  fame,  described  the  humiliating  position  of 
the  body  of  which  he  was  a  member  in  the  following 
words : 

"  We  on  the  Left  are  altogether  in  favor  of  the  parlia- 
mentary regime,  by  which  we  mean  that  the  Reichstag 
cannot  forever  remain  in  a  position  of  subordination. 
Why  does  the  Reichstag  sit  at  all,  why  does  it  pass  resolu- 
tions, if  behind  it  is  a  waste  paper  basket  into  which  these 
resolutions  are  thrown  ?    The  problem  is  to  change  the  im- 


THE  GERMAN  EMPIRE  63 

potence  of  the  Reichstag  into  some  sort  of  power.  .  .  . 
The  man  who  compared  this  House  to  a  hall  of  echoes 
was  not  far  wrong.  .  .  .  When  one  asks  the  question, 
*  What  part  has  the  Reichstag  in  German  history  as  a 
whole  ?  '  it  will  be  seen  that  the  part  is  a  very  limited 
one." 

The  effective  seat  of  political  power  in  Germany  was, 
as  it  had  always  been,  in  the  monarchs.  Germans  might 
have  the  right  to  vote,  but  of  what  value  was  it  if  the 
vote  led  nowhere,  if  the  body  elected  by  the  voters  was 
carefully  and  completely  nullified  by  other  bodies,  aris- 
tocratic hereditary  upper  chambers  and  the  princes,  over 
which  the  voters  had  no  control  whatever? 

Prussia  was  the  strongest  obstacle  the  democratic  move- 
ment of  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries  encoun- 
tered. Germany  in  1914  was  less  liberal  than  in  1848. 
The  most  serious  blow  that  the  principle  of  representative 
government  received  during  that  century  was  the  one 
she  received  at  the  hands  of  Bismarck.  We  have  expert 
testimony  of  the  highest  and  most  official  sort  that  the 
effects  of  that  blow  were  not  outlived.  Prince  von  Biilow, 
writing  in  19 14,  said :  "  Liberalism,  in  spite  of  its  change 
of  attitude  in  national  questions,  has  to  this  day  not  re- 
covered from  the  catastrophic  defeat  which  Prince  Bis- 
marck inflicted  nearly  half  a  century  ago  on  the  party 
of  progress  which  still  clings  to  the  ideals  and  princi- 
ples of  1848." 

The  situation  was  still  further  defined  by  the  utter- 
ance of  Professor  Delbriick,  successor  to  Treitschke  in 
the  chair  of  modern  history  in  the  University  of  Berlin, 
who  wrote  in  a  book  published  in  1914,  "  Anyone  who 
has  any  familiarity  with  all  our  officers  and  generals 


64  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

knows  that  it  would  take  another  Sedan,  inflicted  on  us 
instead  of  by  us,  before  they  would  acquiesce  in  the  con- 
trol of  the  Army  by  the  German  Parliament."  Here  was 
a  very  clear  indication  as  to  where  real  power  lay  in  Ger- 
many. One  has  only  to  recall  the  great  chapters  in  Eng- 
lish history  which  tell  of  the  struggle  for  liberty  to  know 
that  it  has  been  obtained  solely  by  the  recognition  of  the 
supremacy  of  Parliament  over  royal  prerogative,  over 
military  power. 

The  German  state  was  the  most  autocratic  in  Western 
Europe;  it  was  also  the  most  militaristic.  Fundamental 
individual  liberties,  regarded  as  absolutely  vital  in  Eng- 
land, France,  America  and  many  other  states,  had  never 
been  possessed  by  Germans,  nor  were  they  possessed  in 
19 1 4.  Germany  was  rich,  vigorous,  powerful,  instructed. 
It  was  not  free.  A  military  monarchy  is  the  very  oppo- 
site of  a  democratic  state.  Prince  von  Biilow  says,  in 
his  recent  book,  "  Imperial  Germany,"  "  Despite  the  abun- 
dance of  merits  and  the  great  qualities  with  which  the 
German  nation  is  endowed,  political  talent  has  been 
denied  it."  Any  citizen  of  a  free  country  knows  that 
that  talent  grows  only  where  an  opportunity  has  been 
given  it  to  grow.  It  need  occasion  no  surprise  that 
Mommsen,  the  historian  of  Rome,  writing  in  1903,  should 
say  of  his  own  country,  "  There  are  no  longer  free  citi- 
zens." Instead  there  were  industrious,  energetic,  edu- 
cated, ambitious,  and  submissive  subjects. 


CHAPTER  IV 

FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC 

The  Third  Republic  was  proclaimed,  as  we  have  seen, 
by  the  Parisians  on  September  4,  1870,  after  the  news 
of  the  disaster  of  Sedan  had  reached  the  capital.  A 
Provisional  Government  of  National  Defense  was  im- 
mediately installed.  This  government  gave  way  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1871,  to  a  National  Assembly  of  750  members 
elected  by  universal  suflFrage  for  a  single  purpose,  to  make 
peace  with  Germany.  A  majority  of  the  members  of 
this  National  Assembly,  which  met  first  at  Bordeaux, 
were  Monarchists.  The  reason  was  that  the  monar- 
chical candidates  favored  the  making  of  a  peace,  where- 
as many  republican  leaders,  with  Gambetta  at  their  head, 
wished  to  continue  the  war.  The  mass  of  the  peasants 
desiring  peace  therefore  voted  for  the  peace  candidates. 
There  is  nothing  to  show  that  thereby  they  expressed  a 
wish  for  monarchy.  The  Assembly  of  Bordeaux  made 
the  peace,  ceding  Alsace  and  Lorraine,  and  assuming  the 
enormous  war  indemnity.  But  peace  did  not  return  to 
France  as  a  result  of  the  Treaty  of  Frankfort.  The 
"Terrible  Year,"  as  the  French  call  it,  of  1870-71,  had 
more  horrors  in  store.  Civil  war  followed  the  war  with 
the  Germans,  shorter  but  exceeding  it  in  ferocity,  a  war 
between  those  in  control  of  the  city  of  Paris  and  the 
.Government  of  France  as  represented  by  the  Assembly 

65 


66  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  Bordeaux.  That  Assembly  had  chosen  Thiers  as 
"  Chief  of  the  Executive  Power,"  pending  "  the  nation's 
decision  as  to  the  definitive  form  of  government."  Thus 
the  fundamental  question  was  postponed.  Thiers  was 
chosen  for  no  definite  term;  he  was  the  servant  of  the 
Assembly  to  carry  out  its  wishes,  and  might  be  dismissed 
by  it  at  any  moment. 

The  Commune 

Between  the  Government  and  the  people  of  Paris  se- 
rious disagreements  immediately  arose,  which  led  quickly 
to  the  war  of  the  Commune.  Paris  had  proclaimed  the 
Republic.  But  the  Republic  was  not  yet  sanctioned  by 
France,  and  existed  only  de  facto.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
National  Assembly  was  controlled  by  Monarchists,  and 
it  had  postponed  the  determination  of  the  permanent  in- 
stitutions of  the  country.  Did  not  this  simply  mean  that 
it  would  abolish  the  Republic  and  proclaim  the  Mon- 
archy, when  it  should  judge  the  moment  propitious?  This 
fear,  only  too  well  justified,  that  the  Assembly  was  hos- 
tile to  the  Republic,  was  the  fundamental  cause  of  the 
Commune.  Paris  lived  in  daily  dread  of  this  event. 
Paris  was  ardently  Republican.  For  ten  years  under  the 
Empire  it  had  been  returning  Republicans  to  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies.  These  men  did  not  propose  to  let  a 
coup  d'etat  like  that  of  Louis  Napoleon  in  1851  occur 
again.  Various  acts  of  the  Assembly  were  well  adapted 
to  deepen  and  intensify  the  feeling  of  dread  uncertainty. 
The  Assembly  showed  its  distrust  of  Paris  by  voting  in 
March,  1871,  that  it  would  henceforth  sit  in  Versailles. 
In  other  words,  a  small  and  sleepy  town,  and  one  asso- 
ciated with  the  history  of  monarchy,  was  to  be  the  capi- 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      67 

tal  of  France  instead  of  the  great  city  which  had  sus- 
tained the  tremendous  siege  and  by  her  self-sacrifice  and 
suffering  had  done  her  best  to  hold  high  the  honor  of 
the  land.  Not  only  was  Paris  wounded  in  her  pride 
by  this  act,  which  showed  such  unmistakable  suspicion 
of  her,  but  she  suffered  also  in  her  material  interests  at 
a  time  of  great  financial  distress.  The  Government  did 
nothing  to  relieve  this  distress,  but  greatly  accentuated  it 
by  several  unwise  measures. 

There  was  in  Paris  a  considerable  population  having 
diverse  revolutionary  tendencies,  anarchists,  Jacobins,  So- 
cialists— whose  leaders  worked  with  marked  success 
among  the  restless,  poverty-stricken  masses  of  the  great 
city.  Out  of  this  unrest  it  was  easy  for  an  insurrection 
to  grow.  The  insurrectionary  spirit  spread  with  great 
rapidity  until  it  developed  into  a  war  between  Paris  and 
the  Versailles  Government.  Attempts  at  solving  the  dif- 
ficulties by  conciliation  having  failed,  the  Government 
undertook  to  subdue  the  city.  This  necessitated  a  regu- 
lar siege  of  Paris,  the  second  of  that  unhappy  city  within 
a  year.  This  time,  however,  the  siege  was  conducted  by 
Frenchmen,  the  Germans,  who  controlled  the  forts  to  the 
north  of  Paris,  looking  on.  It  lasted  nearly  two  months, 
from  April  2  to  May  21,  when  the  Versailles  troops 
forced  their  entrance  into  the  city.  Then  followed  seven 
days'  ferocious  fighting  in  the  streets,  the  Communists 
more  and  more  desperate  and  frenzied,  the  Versailles 
army  more  and  more  revengeful  and  sanguinary.  This 
was  the  "  Bloody  Week,"  during  which  Paris  suffered 
much  more  than  she  had  from  the  bombardment  of  the 
Germans — a  week  of  fearful  destruction  of  life  and  prop- 
erty.   The  horrors  of  incendiarism  were  added  to  those 


68  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  slaughter.  Finally  the  awful  agony  was  brought  to 
a  close.  The  revenge  taken  by  the  Government  was 
heavy.  It  punished  right  and  left  summarily.  Many 
were  shot  on  the  spot  without  any  form  of  trial.  Arrests 
and  trials  went  on  for  years.  Thousands  were  sent 
to  tropical  penal  colonies.  Other  thousands  were  sen- 
tenced to  hard  labor.  The  rage  of  this  monarchical  as- 
sembly was  slow  in  subsiding. 

The  Government  of  Thiers 

Having  put  down  the  insurrection  of  Paris  and  signed 
the  hard  treaty  with  Germany,  France  was  at  peace. 
The  Republicans  thought  that  the  Assembly  ought  now 
to  dissolve,  arguing  that  it  had  been  elected  to  make 
peace,  and  nothing  else.  The  Assembly  decided,  how- 
ever, that  it  had  full  powers  of  legislation  on  all  sub- 
jects, including  the  right  to  make  the  Constitution.  The 
Assembly  remained  in  power  for  nearly  five  years,  refus- 
ing to  dissolve. 

But  before  taking  up  the  difficult  work  of  making  a 
constitution  it  cooperated  for  two  years  with  Thiers  in 
the  necessary  work  of  reorganization.  The  most  impera- 
tive task  was  that  of  getting  the  Germans  out  of  the 
country.  Under  the  skilful  leadership  of  Thiers,  the  pay- 
ment of  the  enormous  war  indemnity,  five  billion  francs, 
was  undertaken  with  energy  and  carried  out  with  celer- 
ity. In  September,  1873,  the  last  installment  was  paid 
and  the  last  German  soldiers  went  home.  The  soil  of 
France  was  freed  nearly  six  months  earlier  than  was  pro- 
vided by  the  treaty.  For  his  great  services  in  this  initial 
work  of  reconstruction  the  National  Assembly  voted  that 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      69 

Thiers  had  "  deserved  well  of  the  country  "  and  the  peo- 
ple spontaneously  acclaimed  him  as  "  The  Liberator  of 
the  Territory." 

The  reconstruction  of  the  army  was  also  urgent  and 
was  undertaken  in  the  same  spirit  of  patriotism,  entail- 
ing heavy  personal  sacrifices.  A  law  was  passed  in  1872 
instituting  compulsory  military  service.  Five  years  of 
service  in  the  active  army  were  henceforth  to  be  required 
in  most  cases.  The  law  really  established  in  France  the 
Prussian  military  system,  so  successful  in  crushing  all  op- 
ponents. We  now  see  the  beginning  of  that  oppressive 
militarism  which  has  become  the  most  characteristic  fea- 
ture of  contemporary  Europe.  Other  nations  considered 
that  they  were  forced  to  imitate  Prussia  in  order  to  assure 
their  own  safety  in  the  future.  In  the  case  of  France 
the  necessity  was  entirely  obvious. 

In  this  work  of  reconstruction  the  Assembly  and  Thiers 
were  able  to  work  together  on  the  whole  harmoniously. 
Now  that  this  was  accomplished  the  Monarchists  of  the 
Assembly  resolved  to  abolish  the  Republic  and  restore 
the  Monarchy.  They  soon  found  that  they  had  in  Thiers 
a  man  who  would  not  abet  them  in  their  project.  Thiers 
was  originally  a  believer  in  constitutional  monarchy,  but 
he  was  not  afraid  of  a  republican  government,  and  dur- 
ing the  years  after  1870  he  came  to  believe  that  a  Re- 
public was,  for  France,  at  the  close  of  a  turbulent  cen- 
tury, the  only  possible  form  of  government.  "  There  is," 
he  said,  "  only  one  throne,  and  there  are  three  claimants 
for  a  seat  on  it."  He  discovered  a  happy  formula  in 
favor  of  the  Republic :  "  It  is  the  form  of  government 
which  divides  us  least."  And  again,  "  Those  parties  who 
want  a  monarchy,  do  not   want  the  same  monarchy." 


70  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

By  which  phrases  he  accurately  described  a  curious  sit- 
uation. The  Monarchists,  while  they  constituted  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Assembly,  were  divided  into  three  parties, 
no  one  of  which  was  in  the  majority.  There  were  Legiti- 
mists, Orleanists,  and  Bonapartists.  The  Legitimists  up- 
held the  right  of  the  grandson  of  Charles  X,  the  Count 
of  Chambord;  the  Orleanists,  the  right  of  the  grandson 
of  Louis  Philippe,  the  Count  of  Paris;  the  Bonapartists, 
of  Napoleon  III,  or  his  son.  The  Monarchist  parties 
could  unite  to  prevent  a  definite  legal  establishment  of 
the  Republic;  they  could  not  unite  to  establish  the  mon- 
archy, as  each  wing  wished  a  different  monarch.  Out  of 
this  division  arose  the  only  chance  the  Third  Republic 
had  to  live.  As  the  months  went  by,  the  Monarchists 
felt  that  Thiers  was  becoming  constantly  more  of  a  re- 
publican, which  was  true.  If  a  monarchical  restoration 
was  to  be  attempted,  therefore,  Thiers  must  be  gotten 
out  of  the  way.  Consequently,  in  May,  1873,  the  Assem- 
bly forced  him  to  resign  and  immediately  elected  Mar- 
shal MacMahon  president  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
coming  monarch. 

The  Framing  of  the  Constitution 

Earnest  attempts  were  made  forthwith  to  bring  about 
a  restoration  of  the  monarchy.  This  could  be  done  by 
a  fusion  of  the  Legitimists  and  the  Orleanists.  Circum- 
stances were  particularly  favorable  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  such  a  union.  The  Count  of  Chambord  had  no 
direct  descendants.  The  inheritance  would,  therefore, 
upon  his  death,  pass  to  the  House  of  Orleans,  repre- 
sented by  the  Count  of  Paris.    The  elder  branch  would 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      71 

in  the  course  of  nature  be  succeeded  by  the  younger. 
This  fusion  seemed  accomplished  when  the  Count  of 
Paris  visited  the  Count  of  Chambord,  recognizing  him 
as  head  of  the  family.  A  committee  of  nine  members 
of  the  Assembly,  representing  the  Monarchist  parties, 
the  Imperialists  holding  aloof,  negotiated  during  the  sum- 
mer of  1873  with  the  "  King  "  concerning  the  terms  of 
restoration.  The  negotiations  were  successful  on  most 
points,  and  it  seemed  as  if  by  the  close  of  the  year  the 
existence  of  the  Republic  would  be  terminated  and  Henry 
V  would  be  reigning  in  France.  The  Republic  was  saved 
by  the  devotion  of  the  Count  of  Chambord  to  a  symbol. 
He  stated  that  he  would  never  renounce  the  ancient  Bour- 
bon banner.  "  Henry  V  could  never  abandon  the  white 
flag  of  Henry  IV,"  he  had  already  declared,  and  from 
that  resolution  he  never  swerved.  The  tricolor  repre- 
sented the  Revolution.  H  he  was  to  be  King  of  France 
it  must  be  with  his  principles  and  his  flag;  King  of  the 
Revolution  he  would  never  consent  to  be.  The  Orlean- 
ists,  on  the  other  hand,  adhered  to  the  tricolor,  knowing 
its  popularity  with  the  people,  knowing  that  no  regime 
that  repudiated  the  glorious  symbol  could  long  endure. 
Against  this  barrier  the  attempted  fusion  of  the  two 
branches  of  the  Bourbon  family  was  shattered.  The  im- 
mediate danger  to  the  Republic  was  over. 

But  the  Monarchists  did  not  renounce  their  hope  of  re- 
storing the  monarchy.  The  Count  of  Chambord  might, 
perhaps,  change  his  mind;  if  not,  as  he  had  no  son,  the 
Count  of  Paris  would  succeed  him  after  his  death  as  the 
lawful  claimant  to  the  throne;  and  the  Count  of  Paris, 
defender  of  the  tricolor,  could  then  be  proclaimed.  The 
Monarchists,   therefore,   planned   merely  to  gain  time. 


72  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Marshal  MacMahon  had  been  chosen  executive,  as  had 
Thiers,  for  no  definite  term.  He  was  to  serve  during 
the  pleasure  of  the  Assembly  itself.  Believing  that  Mac- 
Mahon would  resign  as  soon  as  the  King  really  appeared, 
they  voted  that  his  term  should  be  for  seven  years,  ex- 
pecting that  a  period  of  that  length  would  see  a  clearing 
up  of  the  situation,  either  the  change  of  mind  or  the 
death  of  the  Count  of  Chambord.  Thus  was  established 
the  Septennate,  or  seven-year  term,  of  the  President, 
which  still  exists.  The  presidency  was  thus  given  a  fixed 
term  by  the  Monarchists,  as  they  supposed,  in  their  own 
interests.  If  they  could  not  restore  the  monarchy  in  1873 
they  could  at  least  control  the  presidency  for  a  consid- 
erable period,  and  thus  prepare  an  easy  transition  to  the 
new  system  at  the  opportune  moment. 

But  France  showed  unmistakably  that  she  desired  the 
establishment  of  a  definitive  system,  that  she  wished  to 
be  through  with  these  provisional  arrangements,  which 
only  kept  party  feeling  feverish  and  handicapped  France 
in  her  foreign  relations.  France  had  as  yet  no  consti- 
tution, and  yet  this  Assembly,  chosen  to  make  peace,  had 
asserted  that  it  was  also  chosen  to  frame  a  constitution, 
and  it  was  by  this  assertion  that  it  justified  its  continu- 
ance in  power  long  after  peace  was  made.  Yet  month 
after  month,  and  year  after  year,  went  by  and  the  con- 
stitution was  not  made,  nor  even  seriously  discussed.  If 
the  Assembly  could  not,  or  would  not,  make  a  constitu- 
tion, it  should  relinquish  its  power  and  let  the  people 
elect  a  body  that  would.    But  this  it  steadily  refused  to  do. 

This  inability  of  the  Monarchists  to  act  owing  to  their 
own  internal  divisions  was  of  advantage  to  only  one 
party,  the  Republican.    More  and  more  people  who  had 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      73 

hitherto  been  Monarchists,  now  finally  convinced  that  a 
restoration  of  the  monarchy  was  impracticable,  joined 
the  Republican  party,  and  thus  it  came  about  finally  in. 
1875  that  the  Assembly  decided  to  make  the  constitution. 
It  did  not,  as  previous  assemblies  had  done,  draw  up  a 
single  document,  defining  the  organization  and  narrating 
the  rights  of  the  citizens.  It  passed  three  separate  laws 
which  taken  together  were  to  serve  as  a  constitution.  By 
these  laws  a  legislature  was  established  consisting  of  two 
houses,  a  Senate,  consisting  of  300  members,  at  least 
forty  years  of  age  and  chosen  for  nine  years,  and  a  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies,  to  be  elected  by  universal  suffrage  for  a 
term  of  four  years.  These  two  houses  meeting  together 
as  a  National  Assembly  elect  the  President  of  the  Re- 
public. There  is  no  vice-president,  no  succession  provided 
by  law.  In  case  of  a  vacancy  in  the  presidency  the  Na- 
tional Assembly  meets  immediately,  generally  within 
fortj-eight  hours,  and  elects  a  new  President.  The  Presi- 
dent has  the  right  to  initiate  legislation,  as  have  the  mem- 
bers of  the  two  houses,  the  duty  to  promulgate  all  laws 
and  to  superintend  their  execution,  the  pardoning  power, 
the  direction  of  the  army  and  navy,  and  the  appointment 
to  all  civil  and  military  positions.  He  may,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Senate,  dissolve  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  be- 
fore the  expiration  of  its  legal  term  and  order  a  new 
election.  But  these  powers  are  merely  nominal,  for  the 
reason  that  every  act  of  the  President  must  be  counter- 
signed by  a  minister,  who  thereby  becomes  responsible  for 
the  act,  the  President  being  irresponsible,  except  in  the 
case  of  high  treason. 

For  the  fundamental  feature  of  the  Third  Republic, 
differentiating  it  greatly  from  the  two  preceding  republics 


74,  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  France  and  from  the  republic  of  the  United  States, 
is  its  adoption  of  the  parliamentary  system  as  worked  out 
in  England.  The  President's  position  resembles  that  of 
a  constitutional  monarch.  All  his  acts  must  be  counter- 
signed by  his  ministers,  who  become  thereby  responsible 
for  them.  The  ministers  in  turn  are  responsible  to  the 
chambers,  particularly  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  The 
Chamber  thus  controls  the  executive,  makes  and  unmakes 
ministries  as  it  chooses.  The  legislature  controls  the  ex- 
ecutive. The  legislative  and  executive  branches  are  thus 
fused  as  in  England,  not  sharply  separated  as  in  the 
United  States.  The  essential  feature  therefore  of  this 
republic  is  that  it  has  adopted  the  governmental  machin- 
ery first  elaborated  in  a  monarchy.  The  Constitution  of 
1875  was  a  compromise  between  opposing  forces,  neither 
of  which  could  win  an  unalloyed  victory.  The  monarch- 
ical assembly  that  established  the  parliamentary  republic  in 
1875  thought  that  it  had  introduced  sufficient  monarchical 
elements  into  it  to  curb  the  aggressiveness  of  democracy 
and  to  facilitate  a  restoration  of  the  monarchy  at  some 
convenient  season.  The  Senate,  it  thought,  would  be  a 
monarchical  stronghold  and  the  President  and  Senate 
could  probably  keep  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  in  check 
by  their  power  of  dissolving  it. 

It  was  some  years  before  the  Republicans  secured  un- 
mistakable control  of  the  Republic  in  all  its  branches. 
In  the  first  elections  under  the  new  constitution,  which 
were  held  at  the  beginning  of  1876,  the  Monarchists  se- 
cured a  slight  majority  in  the  Senate,  the  Republicans 
a  large  majority  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  It  was 
generally  supposed  that  the  President,  MacMahon,  was 
a  Monarchist  in  his  sympathies.    This  was  shown  to  be 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      75 

the  case  when  MacMahon  in  May,  1877,  dismissed  the 
Simon  ministry,  which  was  Republican  and  which  had 
the  support  of  the  Chamber,  and  appointed  a  new  minis- 
try, composed  largely  of  Monarchists  under  the  Duke  of 
Broglie.  Thereupon,  the  Senate,  representing  the  same 
views,  consented  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies,  and  new  elections  were  ordered. 

The  Monarchists  carried  on  a  vigorous  campaign 
against  the  Republicans.  They  were  powerfully  sup- 
ported by  the  clerical  party,  which,  ever  since  1871,  had 
been  extremely  active.  The  Republicans  resented  this 
intrusion  of  the  Catholic  party,  and  their  opinion  of  it 
had  been  vividly  expressed  some  time  before  by  Gam- 
betta  in  the  phase — "  Clericalism,  that  is  our  enemy," 
meaning  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  was  the  most 
dangerous  opponent  of  the  Republic.  The  struggle  was 
embittered.  The  Broglie  ministry  used  every  effort  to 
influence  the  votes  against  Gambetta  and  the  Republi- 
cans. The  clergy  took  an  active  part  in  the  campaign, 
supporting  the  Broglie  candidates  and  preaching  against 
the  Republicans,  conduct  which  in  the  end  was  to  cost 
them  dear. 

The  Republicans  were,  however,  overwhelmingly  vic- 
torious. In  the  following  year,  1878,  they  also  gained 
control  of  the  Senate,  and  in  1879  they  brought  about 
the  resignation  of  MacMahon.  The  National  Assembly 
immediately  met  and  elected  Jules  Grevy  president,  a  man 
whose  devotion  to  Republican  principles  had  been  known 
to  France  for  thirty  years.  For  the  first  time  since  187 1 
the  Republicans  controlled  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  the 
Senate,  and  the  Presidency.  Since  that  time  the  Repub- 
lic has  been  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  Republicans. 


76  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

The  Republicans,  now  completely  victorious,  sought  by 
constructive  legislation  to  consolidate  the  Republic.  Two 
personalities  stand  out  with  particular  prominence :  Gam- 
betta,  as  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  and  Jules 
Ferry,  as  member  of  several  ministries  and  as  twice  prime 
minister.  The  legislation  enacted  during  this  period 
aimed  to  clinch  the  victory  over  the  Monarchists  and 
Clericals  by  making  the  institutions  of  France  thoroughly 
republican  and  secular.  The  seat  of  government  was 
transferred  from  Versailles,  where  it  had  been  since 
187 1,  to  Paris  ( 1880),  and  July  14,  the  day  of  the  storm- 
ing of  the  Bastille,  symbol  of  the  triumph  of  the  people 
over  the  monarchy,  was  declared  the  national  holiday, 
and  was  celebrated  for  the  first  time  in  1880  amid  great 
enthusiasm.  The  right  of  citizens  freely  to  hold  public 
meetings  as  they  might  wish,  and  without  any  preliminary 
permission  of  the  Government,  was  secured,  as  was  also 
a  practically  unlimited  freedom  of  the  press  (1881). 
Workingmen  were  permitted,  for  the  first  time,  freely 
to  form  trades  unions  (1884). 

The  Republicans  were  particularly  solicitous  about  edu- 
cation. As  universal  suffrage  was  the  basis  of  the  State, 
it  was  considered  fundamental  that  the  voters  should  be 
intelligent.  Education  was  regarded  as  the  strongest 
bulwark  of  the  Republic.  Several  laws  were  passed,  con- 
cerning all  grades  of  education,  but  the  most  important 
were  those  concerning  primary  schools.  A  law  of  1881 
made  primary  education  gratuitous;  one  of  1882  made  it 
compulsory  between  the  ages  of  six  and  thirteen,  and 
later  laws  made  it  entirely  secular.  No  religious  instruc- 
tion is  given  in  these  schools.  All  teachers  are  appointed 
from  the  laity.    This  system  of  popular  education  is  one 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      77 

of  the  great  creative  achievements  of  the  Republic,  and 
one  of  the  most  fruitful. 

Under  the  masterful  influence  of  Jules  Ferry,  prime 
minister  in  1881,  and  again  from  1883  to  1885,  the  Re- 
public embarked  upon  an  aggressive  colonial  policy.  She 
established  a  protectorate  over  Tunis ;  sent  expeditions  to 
Tonkin,  to  Madagascar;  founded  the  French  Congo. 
This  policy  aroused  bitter  criticism  from  the  beginning, 
and  entailed  large  expenditures,  but  Ferry,  regardless  of 
growing  opposition,  forced  it  through,  in  the  end  to  his 
own  undoing.  His  motives  in  throwing  France  into  these 
ventures  were  various.  One  reason  was  economic. 
France  was  feeling  the  rivalry  of  Germany  and  Italy, 
and  Ferry  believed  that  she  must  win  new  markets  as 
compensation  for  those  she  was  gradually  losing.  Again, 
France  would  gain  in  prestige  abroad,  and  in  her  own 
feeling  of  contentment,  if  she  turned  her  attention  to 
empire-building  and  ceased  to  think  morbidly  of  her 
losses  in  the  German  war.  Her  outlook  would  be  broader. 
Moreover,  she  could  not  afford  to  be  passive  when  other 
nations  about  her  were  reaching  out  for  Africa  and  Asia. 
The  era  of  imperialism  had  begun.  France  must  partici- 
pate in  the  movement  or  be  left  hopelessly  behind  in  the 
rivalry  of  nations.  Under  Ferry's  resolute  leadership 
the  policy  of  expansion  was  carried  out,  and  the  colonial 
possessions  of  France  were  greatly  increased,  but  owing 
to  one  or  two  slight  reverses,  grossly  magnified  by  his 
enemies,  Ferry  himself  became  unpopular  and  his  notable 
ministry  was  overthrown   (1885). 

During  the  next  few  years  the  political  situation  was 
troubled  and  uncertain.  There  was  no  commanding  per- 
son?dity  in  politics  to  give  elevation  and  sweep  to  men's 


78  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

ideas.  Gambetta  had  died  in  1882  at  the  age  of  forty- 
four  and  Ferry,  the  empire-builder,  was  most  unjustly 
the  victim  of  unpopularity  from  which  he  never  recov- 
ered. Ministries  succeeded  each  other  rapidly.  Politics 
seemed  a  game  of  office  seeking,  pettily  personal,  not  an 
arena  in  which  men  of  large  ideas  could  live  and  act. 
The  educational  and  anti-clerical  and  colonial  policies  all 
aroused  enmities.  President  Grevy  even  was  forced  to 
resign  because  of  a  scandal  that  did  not  compromise  him 
personally,  but  did  smirch  his  son-in-law.  Carnot,  a  mod- 
erate Republican,  was  chosen  to  succeed  him  (Decem- 
ber 3,  1887). 

This  state  of  discontent  and  disillusionment  created  a 
real  crisis  for  the  Republic,  as  it  encouraged  its  enemies 
to  renewed  activity.  These  elements  now  found  a  leader 
or  a  tool  in  General  Boulanger,  a  dashing  figure  on  horse- 
back and  an  attractive  speaker,  who  sought  to  use  the 
popular  discontent  for  his  own  advancement.  Made  min- 
ister of  war  in  1886,  he  showed  much  activity,  seeking 
the  favor  of  the  soldiers  by  improving  the  conditions  of 
life  in  the  barracks,  and  by  advocating  the  reduction  of 
the  required  term  of  service.  He  controlled  several  news- 
papers, which  began  to  insinuate  that  under  his  leader- 
ship France  could  take  her  revenge  upon  Germany  by  a 
successful  war  upon  that  country.  He  posed  as  the  res- 
cuer of  the  Republic,  demanding  a  total  revision  of  the 
constitution.  His  programme,  as  announced,  was  vague, 
but  probably  aimed  at  the  diminution  of  the  importance 
of  Parliament,  the  conferring  of  great  powers  upon  the 
President,  and  his  election  directly  by  the  people,  which 
he  hoped  would  be  favorable  to  himself.  For  three  years 
his  personality  was  a  storm  center.    Discontented  people 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      79 

of  the  most  varied  shades  flocked  to  his  support — Mon- 
archists, Imperialists,  Clericals,  hoping  to  use  him  to 
overturn  the  Republic.  These  parties  contributed  money 
to  the  support  of  his  campaign,  which  was  ably  managed 
with  the  view  to  focusing  popular  attention  upon  him. 
To  show  the  popular  enthusiasm  Boulanger  now  became 
a  candidate  for  Parliament  in  many  districts  where  vacan- 
cies occurred.  In  five  months  (1888)  he  was  elected 
deputy  six  times.  A  seventh  election  in  Paris  itself,  in 
January,  1889,  resulted  in  a  brilliant  triumph.  He  was 
elected  by  over  80,000  majority.  Would  he  dare  take 
the  final  step  and  attempt  to  seize  power,  as  two  Bona- 
partes  had  done  before  him?  He  did  not  have  the  requi- 
site audacity  to  try.  In  the  face  of  this  imminent  dan- 
ger the  Republicans  ceased  their  dissensions  and  stood 
together.  They  assumed  the  offensive.  The  ministry 
summoned  Boulanger  to  appear  before  the  Senate,  sitting 
as  a  High  Court  of  Justice,  to  meet  the  charge  of  con- 
spiring against  the  safety  of  the  State.  His  boldness  van- 
ished. He  fled  from  the  country  to  Belgium.  He  was 
condemned  by  the  court  in  his  absence.  His  party  fell 
to  pieces,  its  leader  proving  so  little  valorous.  Two  years 
later  he  committed  suicide.  The  Republic  had  weathered 
a  serious  crisis.  It  came  out  of  it  stronger  rather  than 
weaker.    Its  opponents  were  discredited. 

In  1892  a  very  important  diplomatic  achievement  still 
further  strengthened  the  Republic.  An  alliance  was  made 
with  Russia  which  ended  the  long  period  of  isolation  in 
which  France  had  been  made  to  feel  her  powerlessness 
during  the  twenty  years  since  the  Franco-Prussian  war. 
This  Dual  Alliance  henceforth  served  as  a  counterweight 
to  the  Triple  Alliance  of  Germany,  Austria,  and  Italy, 


8o  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

and  satisfied  the  French  people,  as  well  as  increased  their 
sense  of  safety  and  their  confidence  in  the  future. 

In  1894  President  Carnot  was  assassinated.  Casimir- 
Perier  was  chosen  to  succeed  him,  but  resigned  after 
six  months.  Felix  Faure  was  elected  in  his  place,  who, 
however,  died  in  office  in  1899,  having  seen  the  strength- 
ening of  the  alliance  with  Russia  and  the  beginning  of 
the  Dreyfus  case,  a  scandal  which  eclipsed  that  of  Bou- 
langer  and  created  a  new  crisis  for  the  Republic.  Faure 
was  succeeded  in  the  presidency  by  Emile  Loubet. 

The  Dreyfus  Case 

In  October,  1894,  Dreyfus,  a  Jewish  officer  in  the 
army,  was  arrested  amid  circumstances  of  unusual  se- 
crecy, was  brought  before  a  court-martial,  and  was  con- 
demned as  guilty  of  treason,  of  transmitting  important 
documents  to  a  foreign  power,  presumably  Germany. 
The  trial  was  secret  and  the  condemnation  rested  on 
merely  circumstantial  evidence,  involving  the  identity  of 
handwriting,  declared  to  be  his.  He  was  condemned  to 
expulsion  from  the  army  and  to  imprisonment  for  life. 
In  January,  1895,  he  was  publicly  degraded  in  a  most 
dramatic  manner  in  the  courtyard  of  the  Military  School, 
before  a  large  detachment  of  the  army.  His  stripes  were 
torn  from  his  uniform,  his  sword  was  broken.  Through- 
out this  agonizing  scene  he  was  defiant,  asserted  his  in- 
nocence, and  shouted  "  Vive  la  France! "  He  was  then 
deported  to  a  small,  barren,  and  unhealthy  island  off 
French  Guiana,  in  South  America,  appropriately  called 
Devil's  Island,  and  was  there  kept  in  solitary  confine- 
ment.   A  life  imprisonment  under  such  conditions  would 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      8i 

probably  not  be  long,  though  it  would  certainly  be  hor- 
rible. 

The  friends  of  Dreyfus  protested  that  a  monstrous 
wrong  had  been  done,  but  their  protests  passed  unheeded. 
But  in  1896  Colonel  Picquart,  head  of  the  detective  bu- 
reau of  the  General  Staff,  discovered  that  the  incrimi- 
nating document  was  not  in  the  handwriting  of  Drey- 
fus but  of  a  certain  Major  Esterhazy,  who  was  shortly 
shown  to  be  one  of  the  most  abandoned  characters  in  the 
army.  Picquart's  superior  officers  were  not  grateful  for 
his  efforts,  fearing  apparently  that  the  honor  of  the  army 
would  be  smirched  if  the  verdict  of  the  court-martial  was 
shown  to  be  wrong.  They,  therefore,  removed  him  from 
his  position  and  appointed  Colonel  Henry  in  his  place. 

In  January,  1898,  Emile  Zola,  the  well-known  novelist, 
published  a  letter  of  great  boldness  and  brilliancy,  in 
which  he  made  most  scathing  charges  against  the  judges 
of  the  court-martial,  not  only  for  injustice  but  for  dis- 
honesty. Many  men  of  reputation  in  literature  and  schol- 
arship joined  in  the  discussion,  on  the  side  of  Dreyfus. 
Zola  hoped  to  force  a  reopening  of  the  whole  question. 
Instead  he  was  himself  condemned  by  a  court  to  im- 
prisonment and  fine.  Shortly  Henry  committed  suicide, 
having  been  charged  with  forging  one  of  the  important 
documents  in  the  case.  His  suicide  was  considered  a  con- 
fession of  guilt.  So  greatly  disturbed  were  the  people 
by  these  scandalous  events  that  public  opinion  forced  the 
reopening  of  the  whole  case.  Dreyfus,  prematurely  old 
as  a  result  of  fearful  physical  and  mental  suffering,  was 
brought  from  Devil's  Island  and  given  a  new  trial  before 
a  court-martial  at  Rennes  in  August,  1899. 

This  new  trial  was  conducted  in  the  midst  of  the  most 


82  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

excited  state  of  the  public  mind  in  France,  and  of  intense 
interest  abroad.  Party  passions  were  inflamed  as  they 
had  not  been  in  France  since  the  Commune.  The  sup- 
porters of  Dreyfus  were  denounced  frantically  as  slan- 
derers of  the  honor  of  the  army,  the  very  bulwark  of 
the  safety  of  the  country,  as  traitors  to  France. 

At  the  Rennes  tribunal,  Dreyfus  encountered  the  vio- 
lent hostility  of  the  high  army  officers,  who  had  been  his 
accusers  five  years  before.  These  men  were  desperately 
resolved  that  he  should  again  be  found  guilty.  The  trial 
was  of  an  extraordinary  character.  It  was  the  evident 
purpose  of  the  judges  not  to  allow  the  matter  to  be  thor- 
oughly probed.  Testimony,  which  in  England  or  Amer- 
ica would  have  been  considered  absolutely  vital,  was 
barred  out.  The  universal  opinion  outside  France  was, 
as  was  stated  in  the  London  Times,  "  that  the  whole  case 
against  Captain  Dreyfus,  as  set  forth  by  the  heads  of 
the  French  army,  in  plain  combination  against  him,  was 
foul  with  forgeries,  lies,  contradictions,  and  puerilities, 
and  that  nothing  to  justify  his  condemnation  had  been 
shown." 

Nevertheless,  the  court,  by  a  vote  of  five  to  two,  de- 
clared him  guilty,  "  with  extenuating  circumstances,"  an 
amazing  verdict.  It  is  not  generally  held  that  treason 
to  one's  country  can  plead  extenuating  circumstances. 
The  court  condemned  him  to  ten  years'  imprisonment, 
from  which  the  years  spent  at  Devil's  Island  might  be 
deducted.  Thus  the  "  honor "  of  the  army  had  been 
maintained. 

President  Loubet  immediately  pardoned  Dreyfus,  and 
he  was  released,  broken  in  health.  This  solution  was 
satisfactory  to  neither  side.    The  anti-Drey fusites  vented 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      83 

their  rage  on  Loubet.  On  the  other  hand,  Dreyfus  de- 
manded exoneration,  a  recognition  of  his  innocence,  not 
pardon. 

But  the  Government  was  resolved  that  this  discussion, 
which  had  so  frightfully  torn  French  society,  should 
cease.  Against  the  opposition  of  the  Dreyfusites,  it 
passed,  in  1900,  an  amnesty  for  all  those  implicated  in 
the  notorious  case,  which  meant  that  no  legal  actions 
could  be  brought  against  any  of  the  participants  on  either 
side.  The  friends  of  Dreyfus,  Zola,  and  Picquart  pro- 
tested vigorously  against  the  erection  of  a  barrier  against 
their  vindication.    The  bill,  nevertheless,  passed. 

Six  years  later,  however,  the  Dreyfus  party  attained 
its  vindication.  The  revision  of  the  whole  case  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  Court  of  Cassation.  On  July  12,  1906, 
that  body  quashed  the  verdict  of  the  Rennes  court-martial. 
It  declared  that  the  charges  which  had  been  brought 
against  Dreyfus  had  no  foundation,  and  that  the  Rennes 
court-martial  had  been  guilty  of  gross  injustice  in  refus- 
ing to  hear  testimony  that  would  have  established  the  in- 
nocence of  the  accused.  The  case  was  not  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  another  military  tribunal,  but  was  closed. 

The  Government  now  restored  Captain  Dreyfus  to 
his  rank  in  the  army,  or  rather,  gave  him  the  rank  of 
major,  allowing  him  to  count  to  that  end  the  whole  time 
in  which  he  had  been  unjustly  deprived  of  his  standing. 
On  July  21,  1906,  he  was  invested  with  a  decoration  of 
the  Legion  of  Honor  in  the  very  courtyard  of  the  Mili- 
tary School,  where,  eleven  years  before,  he  had  been 
so  dramatically  degraded.  Colonel  Picquart  was  pro- 
moted brigadier-general,  and  shortly  became  Minister 
of  War.     Zola  had  died  in  1903,  but  in  1908  his  body 


84  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

was  transferred  to  the  Pantheon,  as  symboHzing  a  kind 
of  civic  canonization.     Thus  ended  the  "  Affair." 

The  Dreyfus  case,  originally  simply  involving  the  fate 
of  an  alleged  traitor,  had  soon  acquired  a  far  greater  sig- 
nificance. Party  and  personal  ambitions  and  interests 
sought  to  use  it  for  purposes  of  their  own  and  thus  the 
question  of  legal  right  and  wrong  was  woefully  distorted 
and  obscured.  Those  who  hated  the  Jews  used  it  to  in- 
flame people  against  that  race,  as  Dreyfus  was  a  Jew. 
The  Clericals  joined  them.  Monarchists  seized  the  occa- 
sion to  declare  that  the  Republic  was  an  egregious  fail- 
ure, breeding  treason,  and.  ought  to  be  abolished.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  rallied  to  the  defense  of  Dreyfus 
those  who  believed  in  his  innocence,  those  who  denounced 
the  hatred  of  a  race  as  a  relic  of  barbarism,  those  who 
believed  that  the  military  should  be  subordinate  to  the 
civil  authority  and  should  not  regard  itself  as  above  the 
law  as  these  army  officers  were  doing,  those  who  believed 
that  the  whole  episode  was  merely  a  hidden  and  danger- 
ous attack  upon  the  Republic,  and  all  who  believed  that 
the  clergy  should  keep  out  of  politics. 

The  chief  result  of  this  memorable  struggle  in  the 
domain  of  politics  w^as  to  unite  more  closely  Republi- 
cans of  every  shade  in  a  common  programme,  to  make 
them  resolve  to  reduce  the  political  importance  of  the 
army  and  of  the  Church.  The  former  was  easily  done, 
by  removals  of  monarchist  officers.  The  attempt  to  solve 
the  latter  much  more  subtle  and  elusive  problem  led  to 
the  next  great  struggle  in  the  recent  history  of  France, 
the  struggle  with  the  Church. 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      85 

The  Separation  of  Church  and  State 

This  new  controversy  assumed  prominence  under  the 
premiership  of  Waldeck-Rousseau,  a  leader  of  the  Pari- 
sian bar,  a  former  follower  of  Gambetta.  In  October, 
1900,  he  made  a  speech  at  Toulouse  which  resounded 
throughout  France.  The  real  peril  confronting  the  coun- 
try he  said,  arose  from  the  growing  power  of  religious 
orders — orders  of  monks  and  nuns — and  from  the  char- 
acter of  the  teaching  given  by  them  in  the  religious  schools 
they  were  conducting.  He  pointed  out  that  here  was  a 
power  within  the  State  which  was  a  rival  of  the  State 
and  fundamentally  hostile  to  the  State.  These  orders, 
moreover,  although  not  authorized  under  the  laws  of 
France,  were  growing  rapidly  in  wealth  and  numbers. 
Between  1877  and  1900  the  number  of  nuns  had  in- 
creased from  14,000  to  75,000,  in  orders  not  authorized. 
The  monks  numbered  about  190,000.  The  property  of 
these  orders,  held  in  mortmain,  estimated  at  about  50,- 
000,000  francs  in  the  middle  of  the  century,  had  risen 
to  700,000,000  in  1880,  and  was  more  than  a  billion 
francs  in  1900.  Here  was  a  vast  amount  of  wealth,  with- 
drawn from  ordinary  processes  of  business,  an  economic 
danger  of  the  first  importance.  But  the  most  serious  fea- 
ture was  the  activity  of  these  orders  in  teaching  and 
preaching,  for  that  teaching  was  declared  to  be  hostile 
to  the  Republic  and  to  the  principles  of  liberty  and  equal- 
ity on  which  the  Republicans  of  France  have  insisted 
ever  since  the  French  Revolution.  In  other  words,  these 
church  schools  were  doing  their  best  to  make  their  pupils 
hostile  to  the  Republic  and  to  republican  ideals.  There 
was  a  danger  to  the  State  which  Parliament  must  face. 


86  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE  ' 

To  preserve  the  Republic,  defensive  measures  must  be 
taken.  Holding  this  opinion,  the  Waldeck-Rousseau  min- 
istry secured  the  passage,  July  i,  1901,  of  the  Law  of 
Associations,  which  provided,  among  other  things,  that 
no  religious  orders  should  exist  in  France  without  defi- 
nite authorization  in  each  case  from  Parliament.  It  was 
the  belief  of  the  authors  of  this  bill  that  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  was  the  enemy  of  the  Republic,  that  it  was 
using  its  every  agency  against  the  Republic,  that  it  had 
latterly  supported  the  anti-Dreyfus  party  in  its  attempt 
to  discredit  the  institutions  of  France,  as  it  had  done 
formerly  under  MacMahon.  Gambetta  had,  at  that  time, 
declared  that  the  enemy  was  the  clerical  party.  "  Cleri- 
calism," said  Combes,  who  succeeded  Waldeck-Rousseau 
in  1902,  "  is,  in  fact,  to  be  found  at  the  bottom  of  every 
agitation  and  every  intrigue  from  which  republican 
France  has  suffered  during  the  last  thirty-five  years." 

Animated  with  this  feeling,  Combes  enforced  the  Asso- 
ciations Law  with  rigor  in  1902  and  1903.  Many  orders 
refused  to  ask  for  authorization  from  Parliament ;  many 
which  asked  were  refused.  Tens  of  thousands  of  monks 
and  nuns  were  forced  to  leave  their  institutions,  which 
were  closed.  By  a  law  of  1904  it  was  provided  that  all 
teaching  by  religious  orders,  even  by  those  authorized, 
should  cease  within  ten  years.  The  State  was  to  have 
a  monopoly  of  the  education  of  the  young,  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  ideals  of  liberalism  it  represented.  Combes, 
upon  whom  fell  the  execution  of  this  law,  suppressed 
about  five  hundred  teaching,  preaching,  and  commercial 
orders.  This  policy  was  vehemently  denounced  by  Cath- 
olics as  persecution,  as  an  infringement  upon  liberty,  the 
liberty  to  teach,  the  liberty  of  parents  to  have  their  chil- 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      87 

dren  educated  in  denominational  schools  if  they  pre- 
ferred. 

This,  as  events  were  to  prove,  was  only  preliminary 
to  a  far  greater  religious  struggle,  which  ended  in  the 
complete  separation  of  Church  and  State. 

The  relations  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  the 
State  down  to  1905  were  determined  by  the  Concordat, 
concluded  between  Napoleon  I  and  Pius  VII  in  1801 
and  promulgated  in  the  following  year.  The  system  then 
established  remained  undisturbed  throughout  the  nine- 
teenth century,  under  the  various  regimes,  but  after  the 
advent  of  the  Third  Republic  there  was  ceaseless  and  in- 
creasing friction  between  the  Church  and  the  State.  The 
opposition  of  the  Republicans  was  augmented  by  the 
activity  of  the  clergy  in  the  Dreyfus  affair.  Conse- 
quently a  law  was  finally  passed,  December  9,  1905, 
which  abrogated  the  Concordat.  The  State  was  hence- 
forth not  to  pay  the  salaries  of  the  clergy;  on  the  other 
hand,  it  relinquished  all  rights  over  their  appointment. 
It  undertook  to  pay  pensions  to  clergymen  who  had 
served  many  years,  and  were  already  well  advanced  in 
age;  also  to  pay  certain  amounts  to  those  who  had  been 
in  the  priesthood  for  a  few  years  only.  In  regard  to 
the  property,  which  since  1789  had  been  declared  to  be 
owned  by  the  nation,  the  cathedrals,  churches,  chapels,  it 
was  provided  that  these  should  still  be  at  the  free  dis- 
posal of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  but  that  they  should 
be  held  and  managed  by  so-called  "  Associations  of  Wor- 
ship," which  were  to  vary  in  size  according  to  the  popu- 
lation of  the  community. 

This  law  was  condemned  unreservedly  by  the  Pope, 
Piux  X,  who  declared  that  the  fundamental  principle  of 


88  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

separation  of  Church  and  State  is  "  an  absolutely  false 
thesis,  a  very  pernicious  error,"  and  who  denounced  the 
Associations  of  Worship  as  giving  the  administrative 
control,  not  "  to  the  divinely  instituted  hierarchy,  but 
to  an  association  of  laymen."  The  Pope's  decision 
was  final  and  conclusive  for  all  Catholics,  as  it  was 
based  on   fundamentals  and  flatly  rejected  the  law  of 

1905- 

Parliament,  therefore,  passed  a  new  law,  early  in  1907, 
supplementary  to  the  law  of  1905.  By  it  most  of  the 
privileges  guaranteed  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  by  the 
law  of  1905  were  abrogated.  The  critical  point  in  the 
new  law  was  the  method  of  keeping  the  churches  open 
for  religious  exercises  and  so  avoiding  all  the  appear- 
ance of  persecution  and  all  the  scandal  and  uproar  that 
would  certainly  result  if  the  churches  of  France  were 
closed.  It  was  provided  that  their  use  should  be  gra- 
tuitous and  should  be  regulated  by  contracts  between  the 
priests  and  the  prefects  or  mayors.  These  contracts 
would  safeguard  the  civil  ownership  of  the  buildings, 
but  worship  would  go  on  in  them  as  before.  This  sys- 
tem is  at  present  in  force. 

The  result  of  this  series  of  events  and  measures  is 
that  Church  and  State  are  now  definitely  separated.  The 
people  have  apparently  approved  in  recent  elections  the 
policy  followed  by  their  Government.  Bishops  and  priests 
no  longer  receive  salaries  from  the  State.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  have  liberties  which  they  did  not  enjoy  under 
the  Concordat,  such  as  rights  of  assembly  and  freedom 
from  government  participation  in  appointments.  The 
faithful  must  henceforth  support  their  priests  and  bear 
the  expenses  of  the  Church  by  private  contributions.    The 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC    89 

church  huildinj^s,  however,  have  been  left  to  their  use 
by  the  irrational  but  practical  device  just  described. 


Acquisition  of  Colonies  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century 

France,  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries, 
had  possessed  an  extensive  colonial  empire.  This  she 
had  lost  to  England  as  a  result  of  the  wars  of  the  reign 
of  Louis  XV,  the  Revolution,  and  the  Napoleonic  period, 
and  in  181 5  her  possessions  had  shrunk  to  a  few  small 
points,  Guadaloupe  and  Martinique  in  the  West  Indies, 
St.  Pierre  and  Miquelon,  off  Newfoundland,  five  towns 
on  the  coast  of  India,  of  which  Pondicherry  was  the  best 
known;  Bourbon,  now  called  Reunion,  an  island  in  the 
Indian  Ocean ;  Guiana  in  South  America,  which  had  few 
inhabitants,  and  Senegal  in  Africa.  These  were  simply 
melancholy  souvenirs  of  her  once  proud  past,  rags  and 
tatters  of  a  once  imposing  empire. 

In  the  nineteenth  century  she  was  destined  to  begin 
again,  and  to  create  an  empire  of  vast  geographical  ex- 
tent, only  second  in  importance  to  that  of  Great  Britain, 
though  vastly  inferior  to  that.  The  interest  in  conquests 
revived  but  slowly  after  181 5.  France  had  conquered 
so  much  in  Europe  from  1792  to  18 12  only  to  lose  it 
as  she  had  lost  her  colonies,  that  conquest  in  any  form 
seemed  but  a  futile  and  costly  display  of  misdirected 
enterprise.  Nevertheless,  in  time  the  process  began  anew, 
and  each  of  the  various  regimes  which  have  succeeded 
one  another  since  181 5  has  contributed  to  the  building 
of  the  new  empire. 

The  beginning  was  made  in  Algeria,  on  the  northern 


90  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

coast  of  Africa,  directly  opposite  France,  and  reached 
now  in  less  than  twenty-four  hours  from  Marseilles. 
Down  to  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century,  Algeria, 
Tunis,  and  Tripoli,  nominally  parts  of  the  Turkish  Em- 
pire, were  in  reality  independent  and  constituted  the 
Barbary  States,  whose  main  business  was  piracy.  But 
Europe  was  no  longer  disposed  to  see  her  wealth  seized 
and  her  citizens  enslaved  until  she  paid  their  ransom.  In 
1816  an  English  fleet  bombarded  Algiers,  released  no  less 
than  3,000  Christian  captives,  and  destroyed  piracy. 

The  French  conquest  of  Algeria  grew  out  of  a  gross 
insult  administered  by  the  Dey  to  a  French  consul  in 
1830.  France  replied  by  sending  a  fleet  to  seize  the  capi- 
tal, Algiers,  She  did  not  at  that  time  intend  the  con- 
quest of  the  whole  country,  but  merely  the  punishment 
of  an  insolent  Dey,  but  attacks  being  made  upon  her  from 
time  to  time  which  she  felt  she  must  crush,  she  was  led 
on,  step  by  step,  until  she  had  everywhere  established  her 
power.  All  through  the  reign  of  Louis  Philippe  this  pro- 
cess was  going  on.  Its  chief  feature  was  an  intermittent 
struggle  of  fourteen  years  with  a  native  leader,  Abd-el- 
Kader,  who  proclaimed  and  fought  a  Holy  War  against 
the  intruder.  In  the  end  (1847)  he  was  forced  to  sur- 
render, and  France  had  secured  an  important  territory. 

Under  Napoleon  III,  the  beginning  of  conquest  in 
another  part  of  Africa  was  made.  France  had  possessed, 
since  the  time  of  Louis  XIII  and  Richelieu,  one  or  two 
miserable  ports  on  the  western  coast,  St.  Louis  the  most 
important.  Under  Napoleon  III,  the  annexation  of  the 
Senegal  valley  was  largely  carried  through  by  the  efforts 
of  the  governor,  Faidherbe,  who  later  distinguished  him- 
self in  the  Franco-German  war.     Under  Napoleon  III 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC    91 

also,  a  beginning  was  made  in  another  part  of  the  world, 
in  Asia.  The  persecution  of  Christian  natives,  and  the 
murder  of  certain  French  missionaries  gave  Napoleon  the 
pretext  to  attack  the  King  of  Annam,  whose  kingdom 
was  in  the  peninsula  that  juts  out  from  southeastern  Asia. 
After  eight  years  of  intermittent  fighting  France  acquired 
from  the  king  the  whole  of  Cochin-China  (1858-67), 
and  also  established  a  protectorate  over  the  Kingdom  of 
Cambodia,  directly  north. 

Thus,  by  1870,  France  had  staked  out  an  empire 
of  about  700,000  square  kilometers,  containing  a  popu- 
lation of  about  six  million. 

Under  the  present  Republic  the  work  of  expansion  and 
consolidation  has  been  carried  much  farther  than  under 
all  of  the  preceding  regimes.  There  have  been  extensive 
annexations  in  northern  Africa,  western  Africa,  the  In- 
dian Ocean,  and  in  Indo-China. 

In  northern  Africa,  Tunis  has  passed  under  the  control 
of  France.  This  was  one  of  the  Barbary  States,  and 
was  nominally  a  part  of  the  Turkish  Empire,  with  a 
Bey  as  sovereign.  After  establishing  herself  in  Algeria, 
France  desired  to  extend  her  influence  eastward,  over 
this  neighboring  state.  But  Italy,  now  united,  began 
about  1870  to  entertain  a  similar  ambition.  France, 
therefore,  under  the  ministry  of  Jules  Ferry,  an 
ardent  believer  in  colonial  expansion,  sent  troops  into 
Tunis  in  1881,  which  forced  the  Bey  to  accept  a  French 
protectorate  over  his  state.  The  French  have  not 
annexed  Tunis  formally,  but  they  control  it  abso- 
lutely through  a  Resident  at  the  court  of  the  Bey, 
whose  advice  the  latter  is  practically  obliged  to 
follow. 


92  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

In  western  Africa,  France  has  made  extensive  an- 
nexations in  Senegal,  in  Guinea,  Dahomey,  the  Ivory 
Coast,  and  the  region  of  the  Niger,  and  north  of  the 
Congo.  By  occupying  the  oases  in  the  Sahara  she 
has  established  her  claims  to  that  vast  but  hitherto 
unproductive  area.  This  process  has  covered  many 
years  of  the  present  Republic.  The  result  is  the 
existence  of  French  authority  over  most  of  north- 
v^est  Africa,  from  Algeria  on  the  Mediterranean,  to 
the  Congo  River.  This  region  south  of  Algeria  is 
called  the  French  Soudan,  and  comprises  an  area 
seven  or  eight  times  as  large  as  France,  with  a  popu- 
lation of  some  fourteen  millions,  mainly  blacks. 
There  is  some  discussion  of  a  Trans-Saharan  railroad 
to  bind  these  African  possessions  more  closely  to- 
gether. 

In  Asia,  the  Republic  has  imposed  her  protectorate 
over  the  Kingdom  of  Annam  (1883)  and  has  annexed 
Tonkin,  taken  from  China  after  considerable  fight- 
ing (1885).  In  the  Indian  Ocean,  she  has  conquered 
Madagascar,  an  island  larger  than  France  herself, 
with  a  population  of  two  and  a  half  million.  A  pro- 
tectorate was  imposed  upon  that  country  in  1895, 
after  ten  years  of  disturbance,  but  after  quelling  a 
rebellion  that  broke  out  the  following  year,  the  pro- 
tectorate was  abolished,  and  the  island  was  made  a 
French  colony. 

Thus  at  the  opening  of  the  twentieth  century  the 
colonial  empire  of  France  is  eleven  times  larger  than 
France  itself,  has  an  area  of  six  million  square  kilo- 
meters, a  population  of  about  fifty  millions,  and  a 
rapidly  growing  commerce.     Most  of  this  empire  is 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      93 

located  in  the  tropics  and  is  ill-adapted  to  the  settle- 
ment of  Europeans.  Algeria  and  Tunis,  however, 
offer  conditions  favorable  for  such  settlements.  They 
constitute  the  most  valuable  French  possessions.  Al- 
geria is  not  considered  a  colony,  but  an  integral  part 
of  France.  It  is  divided  into  three  departments,  each 
one  of  which  sends  one  senator  and  two  deputies  to 
the  chambers  of  the  French  Parliament. 

On  March  30,  1912,  France  established  a  protec- 
torate over  Morocco.  For  several  years  the  status 
of  that  country  had  been  one  of  the  contentious  prob- 
lems of  international  politics.  France  had  desired 
to  gain  control  of  it  in  order  to  round  out  her  em- 
pire in  northwestern  Africa.  In  1904  she  had  made 
an  agreement  with  England  whereby  a  far-reaching 
diplomatic  revolution  in  Europe  was  inaugurated. 
This  was  largely  the  work  of  Theophile  Delcasse,  min- 
ister of  foreign  affairs  for  seven  years,  from  1898 
to  1905,  one  of  the  ablest  statesmen  the  Third  Re- 
public has  produced.  Delcasse  believed  that  France 
would  be  able  to  show  a  more  independent  and  self- 
respecting  foreign  policy,  one  freer  from  German 
domination  and  intimidation,  if  her  relations  with 
Italy  and  England,  severely  strained  for  many  years, 
largely  owing  to  colonial  rivalries  and  jealousies,  could 
be  made  cordial  and  friendly.  This  he  was  able  to 
accomplish  by  arranging  a  treaty  of  commerce  favor- 
able to  Italy  and  by  promising  Italy  a  free  hand  in 
Tripoli  and  receiving  from  her  the  assurance  that 
she  would  do  nothing  to  'hamper  French  policy  in 
Morocco,  a  country  of  special  significance  to  France 
because  of  her  possession  of  Algeria. 


94  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

More  important  was  the  reconciliation  with  Eng- 
land. The  relations  of  these  two  neighbors  had  long 
been  difficult  and,  at  times,  full  of  danger.  Indeed, 
in  1898  they  had  stood  upon  the  very  brink  of  war 
when  a  French  expedition  under  Marchand  had 
crossed  Africa  and  had  seized  Fashoda  on  the  Upper 
Nile  in  the  sphere  of  influence  which  Great  Britain 
considered  emphatically  hers.  The  Fashoda  incident 
ended  in  the  withdrawal  of  the  French  before  the 
resolute  attitude  of  England.  The  lesson  of  this  inci- 
dent was  not  lost  upon  either  power,  and  six  years 
later,  on  April  8,  1904,  they  signed  an  agreement 
which  not  only  removed  the  sources  of  friction  be- 
tween them  once  for  all,  but  which  established  what 
came  to  be  known  as  the  Entente  Cordiale,  destined 
to  great  significance  in  the  future.  By  this  agree- 
ment France  recognized  England's  special  interests  in 
Egypt  and  abandoned  her  long-standing  demand  that 
England  should  set  a  date  for  the  cessation  of  her 
"  occupation  "  of  that  country.  On  the  other  hand, 
England  recognized  the  special  interests  of  France 
in  Morocco  and  promised  not  to  impede  their  devel- 
opment. 

One  power  emphatically  objected  to  the  deter- 
mination of  the  fate  of  an  independent  country  by 
these  two  powers  alone.  Germany  challenged  this 
agreement  and  asserted  that  she  must  herself  be  con- 
sulted in  such  matters;  that  her  rivals  had  no  right 
by  themselves  to  preempt  those  regions  of  the  world 
which  might  still  be  considered  fields  for  European 
colonization  or  control.  German  interests  must  be 
considered  quite  as  much  as  French  or  English. 


FRANCE  UNDER  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC      95 

Germany's  peremptory  attitude  precipitated  an  in- 
ternational crisis  and  led  to  the  international  Con- 
ference of  Algeciras  in  1906,  which  was,  however,  on 
the  whole  a  victory  for  France,  acknowledging  the 
primacy  of  her  interests  in  Morocco.  As  France  pro- 
ceeded to  strengthen  her  position  there  in  the  suc- 
ceeding years,  Germany  issued  another  challenge  in 
191 1  by  sending  a  gunboat  to  Agadir,  thus  creating 
another  crisis,  which  for  a  time  threatened  a  Euro- 
pean war.  In  the  end,  however,  Germany  recog- 
nized the  position  of  France,  but  only  after  the  latter 
had  ceded  to  her  extensive  territories  in  Kamerun 
and  the  French  Congo.  For  several  years,  therefore, 
Morocco  was  a  danger  spot  in  international  politics, 
exerting  a  disturbing  influence  upon  the  relations  of 
European  powers  to  each  other,  particularly  those  of 
France  and  Germany.  Finally,  however,  the  inde- 
pendence of  Morocco  disappeared  and  the  country 
was  practically  incorporated  in  the  colonial  empire 
of  France. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  KINGDOM  OF  ITALY  SINCE  1870 

The  Kingdom  of  Italy,  as  we  have  seen,  was  estab- 
lished in  1859  and  i860.  Venetia  was  acquired  in 
1866,  and  Rome  in  1870.  In  these  cases,  as  in  the 
preceding,  the  people  were  allowed  to  express  their 
wishes  by  a  vote,  which,  in  both  instances,  was  prac- 
tically unanimous  in  favor  of  the  annexation. 

The  Constitution  of  the  new  kingdom  was  the 
old  Constitution  of  Piedmont,  slightly  altered.  It 
provided  for  a  parliament  of  two  chambers,  a  Senate 
and  a  Chamber  of  Deputies.  The  full  parliamentary 
system  was  introduced,  ministers  representing  the 
will  of  the  Lower  Chamber.  The  first  capital  was 
Turin,  then  Florence  in  1865,  and  finally  Rome  since 
1871. 

The  most  perplexing  question  confronting  the  new 
kingdom  concerned  its  relations  to  the  Papacy.  The 
Italian  Kingdom  had  seized,  by  violence,  the  city  of 
Rome,  over  which  the  Popes  had  ruled  in  uncon- 
tested right  for  a  thousand  years.  Rome  had  this 
peculiarity  over  all  other  cities,  that  it  was  the  capital 
of  Catholics  the  world  over.  Any  attempt  to  expel 
the  Pope  from  the  city  or  to  subject  him  to  the  House 
of  Savoy  would  everywhere  arouse  the  faithful, 
already  clamorous,  and  might  cause  an  intervention 

96 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  ITALY  SINCE  1870      97 

in  behalf  of  the  restoration  of  the  temporal  power. 
There  were  henceforth  to  be  two  sovereigns,  one  tem- 
poral, one  spiritual,  within  the  same  city.  The  situa- 
tion was  absolutely  unique  and  extremely  delicate. 
It  was  considered  necessary  to  determine  their  rela- 
tions before  the  government  was  transferred  to  Rome. 
It  was  impossible  to  reach  any  agreement  with  the 
Pope,  as  he  refused  to  recognize  the  Kingdom  of 
Italy,  but  spoke  of  Victor  Emmanuel  simply  as  the 
King  of  Sardinia,  and  would  make  no  concessions  in 
regard  to  his  own  rights  in  Rome.  Parliament,  there- 
fore, assumed  to  settle  the  matter  alone  and  passed. 
May  13,  1871,  the  Law  of  Papal  Guarantees,  a  re- 
markable act  defining  the  relations  of  Church  and 
State  in  Italy. 

The  object  of  this  law  was  to  carry  out  Cavour's 
principle  of  a  "  free  Church  in  a  free  State,"  to  reas- 
sure Catholics  that  the  new  kingdom  had  no  inten- 
tion of  controlling  in  any  way  the  spiritual  activities 
of  the  Pope,  though  taking  from  him  his  temporal 
powers.  Any  attacks  upon  him  are,  by  this  law,  to 
be  punished  exactly  as  are  similar  attacks  upon  the 
King.  He  has  his  own  diplomatic  corps,  and  receives 
diplomatic  representatives  from  other  countries.  Cer- 
tain places  are  set  apart  as  entirely  under  his  sover- 
eignty :  the  Vatican,  the  Lateran,  Castel  Gandolfo, 
and  their  gardens.  Here  no  Italian  official  may 
enter  in  his  official  capacity,  for  Italian  law  and  admin- 
istration stop  outside  these  limits.  In  return  for  the 
income  lost  with  the  temporal  power,  the  Pope  is 
granted  3,225,000  france  a  year  by  the  Italian  King- 
dom.    This  law  has  been  faithfully  observed  by  the 


98  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Italian  Government,  but  it  has  never  been  accepted  by 
the  Pope,  nor  has  the  Kingdom  of  Italy  been  recog- 
nized by  him.  He  considers  himself  the  "  prisoner  of 
the  Vatican,"  and  since  1870  has  not  left  it  to  go  into 
the  streets  of  Rome,  as  he  would  thereby  be  tacitly 
recognizing  the  existence  of  another  ruler  there,  the 
"  usurper." 

Another  difficult  problem  for  the  Kingdom  v^as  its 
financial  status.  The  debts  of  the  former  Italian 
states  were  assumed  by  it  and  were  large.  The  na- 
tion was  also  obliged  to'  make  large  expenditures  on 
the  army  and  the  navy,  on  fortifications,  and  on  pub- 
lic works,  particularly  on  the  building  of  railways, 
which  were  essential  to  the  economic  prosperity  of 
the  country  as  well  as  conducive  to  the  strengthening 
of  the  sense  of  common  nationality.  There  were, 
for  several  years,  large  annual  deficits,  necessitating 
new  loans,  which,  of  course,  augmented  the  public 
debt.  Heroically  did  successive  ministers  seek  to 
make  both  ends  meet,  not  shrinking  from  new  and 
unpopular  taxes,  or  from  the  seizure  and  sale  of 
monastic  lands.  Success  was  finally  achieved,  and  in 
1879  the  receipts  exceeded  the  expenditures. 

In  1878  Victor  Emmanuel  II  died  and  was  buried 
in  the  Pantheon,  one  of  the  few  ancient  buildings  of 
Rome,  Over  his  tomb  is  the  inscription,  "  To  the 
Father  of  his  Country."  He  was  succeeded  by  his 
son,  Humbert  I,  then  thirty-four  years  of  age,  A 
month  later  Pius  IX  died,  and  was  succeeded  by  Leo 
XIII,  at  the  time  of  his  election  sixty-eight  years  of 
age.  But  nothing  was  changed  by  this  change  of 
personalities.     Each   maintained   the   system  of  his 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  ITALY  SINCE  1870       99 

predecessor.  Leo  XIII,  Pope  from  1878  to  1903,  fol- 
lowing^ the  precedent  set  by  Pius  IX,  never  recog- 
nized the  Kingdom  of  Italy,  nor  did  he  ever  leave 
the  Vatican.  He,  too,  considered  himself  a  prisoner 
of  the  "  robber  king." 

Another  urgent  problem  confronting  the  new  king- 
dom was  that  of  the  education  of  its  citizens.  This 
was  most  imperative  if  the  masses  of  the  people  were 
to  be  fitted  for  the  freer  and  more  responsible  life 
opened  by  the  political  revolution.  The  preceding 
governments  had  grossly  neglected  this  duty.  In 
1861  over  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  population  of 
the  kingdom  were  illiterate.  In  Naples  and  Sicily, 
the  most  backward  in  development  of  all  the  sections 
of  Italy,  the  number  of  illiterates  exceeded  ninety 
per  cent  of  the  population;  and  in  Piedmont  and 
Lombardy,  the  most  advanced  sections,  one-third  of 
the  men  and  more  than  half  of  the  women  could 
neither  read  nor  write.  In  1877  ^  compulsory  educa- 
tion law  was  finally  passed,  but  it  has  not,  owing  to 
the  expense,  been  practically  enforced.  Though  Italy 
has  done  much  during  the  last  thirty  years,  much 
remains  to  be  done.  Illiteracy,  though  diminishing, 
is  still  widely  prevalent.  Recent  statistics  show  that 
forty  per  cent  of  the  recruits  in  the  army  are  illiterate. 

In  1882  the  suffrage  was  greatly  extended.  Hith- 
erto limited  to  those  who  were  twenty-five  years  of 
age  or  over  and  paid  about  eight  dollars  a  year  in 
direct  taxes,  it  was  now  thrown  open  to  all  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  the  tax  qualification 
was  reduced  by  half;  also  all  men  of  twenty-one  who 
had  had  a  primary  education  were  given  the  vote. 


loo  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

whether  they  could  meet  the  tax  quahfication  or  not. 
The  result  was  that  the  number  of  voters  was  tripled 
at  once,  rising  from  about  600,000  to  more  than 
2,000,000. 

In  1912  Italy  took  a  long  step  toward  democracy 
by  making  the  suffrage  almost  universal  for  men, 
only  denying  the  franchise  to  those  younger  than 
thirty  who  have  neither  performed  their  military  serv- 
ice nor  learned  to  read  and  write.  Thus  all  men 
over  twenty-one,  even  if  illiterate,  have  the  vote  if 
they  have  served  in  the  army.  The  number  of  voters 
was  thus  increased  from  somewhat  over  three  million 
to  more  than  eight  and  a  half  million. 

In  foreign  affairs  Italy  made  an  important  deci- 
sion which  influenced  her  course  down  to  1914.  In 
1882  she  entered  into  alliance  with  Germany,  and  with 
Austria,  her  former  enemy,  and  in  many  respects  still' 
her  rival.  This  made  the  famous  Triple  Alliance, 
which  has  dominated  Europe  most  of  the  time  since 
it  was  created.  The  reasons  why  Italy  entered  this 
combination,  highly  unnatural  for  her,  considering  her 
ancient  hatred  of  Austria,  were  various :  pique  at 
France  for  the  seizure  of  Tunis,  which  Italy  herself 
coveted,  dread  of  French  intervention  in  behalf  of 
the  Pope,  and  a  desire  to  appear  as  one  of  the  great 
powers  of  Europe.  The  result  was  that  she  was 
forced  to  spend  larger  sums  upon  her  army,  remod- 
eled along  Prussian  lines,  and  her  navy,  thus  disturb- 
ing her  finances  once  more. 

Italy  now  embarked  upon  another  expensive  and 
hazardous  enterprise,  the  acquisition  of  colonies,  in- 
fluenced in  this  direction  by  the  prevalent  fashion, 


THE  [KINGDOM  OF  ITALY  SINCE  1870     mt 

and  by  a  desire  |toJ^l|2]^JJ^^!ig\th^\world!)pt)wersii 
Shut  out  of  Tunis,  her  natural  field,  by  France,  she, 
in  1885,  seized  positions  on  the  Red  Sea,  particularly 
the  port  of  Massawa.  Two  years  later  she  conse- 
quently found  herself  at  war  with  Abyssinia.  The 
minister  who  had  inaugurated  this  movement,  Depre- 
tis,  died  in  1M7.  He  was  succeeded  by  Crispi,  who 
threw  himself  heartily  into  the  colonial  scheme,  ex- 
tended the  claims  of  Italy  in  East  Africa,  and  tried 
to  play  ofiF  •ne  native  leader  against  another.  To  the 
new  colony  he  gave  the  name  of  Eritrea.  At  the  same 
time  an  Italian  protectorate  was  established  over  a 
region  in  eastern  Africa  called  Somaliland.  But  all 
this  involved  long  and  expensive  campaigns  against 
the  natives.  Italy  was  trying  to  play  the  role  of  a 
great  power  when  her  resources  did  not  warrant  it. 
The  consequence  of  this  aggressive  and  ambitious 
military,  naval,  and  colonial  policy  was  the  creation 
anew  of  a  deficit  in  the  state's  finances,  which  in- 
creased alarmingly.  The  deficits  of  four  years 
amounted  to  the  enormous  sum  of  over  seventy-five 
million  dollars,  which  occasioned  heavy  new  taxes  and 
widespread  discontent,  which  was  put  down  ruth- 
lessly by  despotic  methods.  This  policy  of  aggran- 
dizement led  to  a  war  with  Abyssinia  and  to  a  dis- 
aster in  1896  in  the  battle  of  Adowa,  so  crushing  as 
to  end  the  political  life  of  Crispi  and  to  force  Italy 
into  more  moderate  courses.  Popular  discontent  con- 
tinued. Its  cause  was  the  wretchedness  of  the  peo- 
ple, which  in  turn  was  largely  occasioned  by  the 
heavy  taxation  resulting  from  these  unwise  attempts 
to  play  an  international  role  hopelessly  out  of  pro- 


102  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

portion  to  the  country's  resources.  In  the  south  and 
center  the  movement  took  the  form  of  ''  bread  riots," 
but  in  the  north  it  was  distinctly  revolutionary. 
"  Down  with  the  dynasty  "  was  a  cry  heard  there. 
All  these  movements  were  suppressed  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, but  only  after  much  bloodshed.  They  in- 
dicated widespread  distress  and  dissatisfaction  with 
existing  conditions. 

In  July,  1900,  King  Humbert  was  assassinated  by 
an  Italian  anarchist,  who  went  to  Italy  for  that  pur- 
pose from  Paterson,  New  Jersey.  Humbert  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son  Victor  Emmanuel  HI,  then  in  his 
thirty-first  year. 

The  new  King  had  been  carefully  educated  and 
soon  showed  that  he  was  a  man  of  intelligence,  of 
energy,  and  of  firmness  of  will.  He  won  the  favor 
of  his  subjects  by  the  simplicity  of  his  mode  of  life, 
by  his  evident  sense  of  duty,  and  by  his  sincere  inter- 
est in  the  welfare  of  the  people,  shown  in  many  spon- 
taneous and  unconventional  ways.  He  became  forth- 
with a  more  decisive  factor  in  the  government  than 
his  father  had  been.  He  was  a  democratic  monarch, 
indifferent  to  display,  laborious,  vigorous.  The  open- 
ing decade  of  the  twentieth  century  was  character- 
ized by  a  new  spirit  which,  in  a  way,  reflected  the 
buoyancy,  and  hopefulness,  and  courage  of  the  young 
King,  But  the  causes  for  the  new  optimism  were 
deeper  than  the  mere  change  of  rulers  and  lay  in 
the  growing  prosperity  of  the  nation,  a  prosperity 
which,  despite  appearances,  had  been  for  some  years 
preparing  and  which  was  now  witnessed  on  all  sides. 
(The  worst  was  evidently  over. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  ITALY  SINCE  1870     103 

Italy  was  becoming  an  industrial  nation.  Silk  and 
cotton  and  chemical  and  iron  manufactures  were  ad- 
vancing rapidly.  The  merchant  marine  was  being 
greatly  increased.  This  transformation  into  a  great 
industrial  state  was  not  only  possible  but  was  nec- 
essary, owing  to  her  rapidly  increasing  population, 
which  grew  from  1870  to  1914  from  about  25,000,000 
to  over  35,000,000.  The  birth  rate  was  higher  than 
that  of  any  other  country  of  Europe.  But  during 
the  same  period  the  emigration  from  Italy  was  large 
and  was  steadily  increasing.  Official  statistics  show 
that,  between  1876  and  1905,  over  eight  million  per- 
sons emigrated,  of  whom  over  four  million  went  to 
various  South  American  countries,  especially  Argen- 
tina, and  to  the  United  States.  Perhaps  half  of  the 
total  number  have  returned  to  their  native  land,  for 
much  of  the  emigration  was  of  a  temporary  charac- 
ter. Emigration  has  increased  greatly  under  the 
present  reign,  while  the  economic  conditions  of  the 
country  have  begun  to  show  improvement.  This  is 
explained  by  the  fact  that  the  industrial  revival  de- 
scribed above  has  not  yet  affected  southern  Italy  and 
Sicily,  whence  the  large  proportion  of  the  emigrants 
come.  From  those  parts  which  have  experienced  that 
revival  the  emigration  has  not  been  large.  Only  by 
an  extensive  growth  of  industries  can  this  emigration 
be  stopped  or  at  least  rendered  normal.  Italy  finds 
herself  in  the  position  in  which  Germany  was  for 
many  years,  losing  hundreds  of  thousands  of  her  citi- 
zens each  year.  With  the  expansion  of  German  in- 
dustries the  outgoing  stream  grew  less  until,  in  1908, 
it  practically  ceased,  owing  to  the  fact  that  her  mines 


I04  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

and  factories  had  so  far  developed  as  to  give  employ- 
ment to  all. 

This  increasing  population  and  this  constant  loss 
by  emigration  have  served  in  recent  years  to  concen- 
trate Italian  thought  more  and  more  upon  the  neces- 
sity of  new  and  more  advantageous  colonies,  that  her 
surplus  population  may  not  be  drained  away  to  other 
countries.  The  desire  for  expansion  has  increased 
and  with  it  the  determination  to  use  whatever  oppor- 
tunities are  offered  by  the  politics  of  Europe  for  that 
purpose.  The  result  was  the  acquisition  in  1912  of 
the  extensive  territory  of  Tripoli  and  of  a  dozen 
^gean  islands,  spoils  of  a  war  with  Turkey  which 
will  be  more  fully  treated  later.  With  this  desire 
for  expansion  went  also  a  tendency  to  scrutinize  more 
carefully  the  nature  of  her  relations  with  her  allies, 
Germany  and  Austria.  The  advantages  of  the  Triple 
Alliance  became,  in  the  minds  of  many,  more  and 
more  doubtful.  One  obvious  and  positive  disadvan- 
tage in  an  alliance  with  Austria  was  the  necessary 
abandonment  of  a  policy  of  annexation  of  those  terri- 
tories north  and  northeast  of  Italy,  which  are  inhab- 
ited by  Italians  but  which  were  not  included  within 
the  boundaries  of  the  kingdom  at  the  time  of  its 
creation.  These  were  the  so-called  Trentino,  the 
region  around  the  town  of  Trent;  Trieste,  and  Istria. 
These  territories  were  subject  to  Austria,  and  as  long 
as  Italy  was  allied  with  Austria  she  was  kept  from 
any  attempt  to  gain  this  Italia  irredenta  or  Unre- 
deemed Italy,  and  thus  so  round  out  her  boundaries 
as  to  include  within  them  people  who  are  Italian  in 
race,  in  language,  and,  probably,  in  sympathy. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  ITALY  SINCE  1870     105 

On  May  4,  191 5,  Italy  denounced  her  treaty  of 
alliance  with  Austria.  The  famous  Triple  Alliance, 
which  had  been  the  dominant  factor  in  European 
diplomacy  since  1882,  thus  came  to  an  end.  On  May 
23,  Italy  declared  war  against  Austria-Hungary  and 
entered  the  European  conflict  on  the  side  of  the  En- 
tente Allies  in  the  hope  of  realizing  her  "  national 
aspirations." 


CHAPTER  VI 

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 

We  have  traced  the  history  of  the  unification  of 
Germany  and  Italy  and  the  rise  of  the  Triple  Alli- 
ance, great  facts  in  the  life  of  modern  Europe.  In 
so  doing  we  have  seen  something  of  the  fortunes  of 
the  third  member  of  that  Alliance,  the  Empire  of 
Austria,  a  strange  collection  of  peoples  and  states, 
or  remnants  of  former  states,  over  whose  destinies 
presided,  and  had  presided  for  centuries,  the  famous 
House  of  Hapsburg.  That  Empire,  as  we  have  seen, 
had  had  a  troubled  history  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
and  had  experienced  serious  reverses  of  fortune.  Aus- 
tria had  lost  her  Italian  possessions,  Lombardy  in  1859 
and  Venetia  in  1866,  and  was  no  longer  a  factor  in  the 
history  of  that  peninsula.  She  had  been  expelled 
from  Germany  in  1866  as  a  result  of  the  policies  of 
Bismarck  and  was  now  thrown  in  upon  herself. 
The  situation  was  one  that  necessitated  a  thorough 
reorganization  of  the  state  and  that  reorganiza- 
tion was  immediately  undertaken.  The  form  that 
it  took  was  peculiar.  The  various  possessions  of  the 
House  of  Hapsburg  were  grouped  and  were  recog- 
nized as  falling  into  two  large  divisions,  one  known 
henceforth  as  Austria,  the  other  known  as  Hungary. 
Austria  consisted  of  the  duchies,  between  Germany 

106 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  107 

and  Italy,  Upper  Austria,  Lower  Austria  and  others, 
which  for  a  century  had  been  under  Hapsburg  rule, 
the  old  patrimony  of  that  family;  consisting  also  of 
Bohemia,  an  independent  kingdom  during  the  Mid- 
dle Ages,  but  acquired  by  the  Hapsburgs  in  1526; 
of  Galicia,  a  large  province  which  had  belonged  to  the 
former  kingdom  of  Poland,  but  which  the  House  of 
Hapsburg  had  acquired  in  the  famous  partitions  of 
Poland  in  1772  and  1795;  consisting  also  of  several 
other  regions  north  of  the  Adriatic,  and  of  Dalmatia 
along  its  eastern  shore.  Such,  in  a  territorial  sense, 
was  Austria.  Hungary,  on  the  other  hand,  the  other 
of  the  two  large  divisions,  had  once  been  an  inde- 
pendent kingdom,  like  Bohemia,  had  come  under  the 
House  of  Hapsburg  at  the  same  time  as  the  latter; 
that  is,  in  1526.  It  had  long  been  oppressed  and  lat- 
terly had  been  divided  by  the  reigning  dynasty  into 
five  separate  parts,  ruled  directly  from  Vienna.  But 
Hungary  had  a  lively  historical  sense,  was  constantly 
asserting  her  "  historic  rights,"  that  is,  her  right  to 
be  treated  as  an  independent  state,  with  all  her  for- 
mer institutions  of  control  and  local  government. 
Hungary  was  always  intensely  conscious  of  the  role 
she  had  played  in  the  past,  and  was  determined  to 
resume  that  role,  if  possible.  The  adversities  expe- 
rienced by  the  dynasty  in  Italy  and  Germany,  already 
described,  gave  her  the  opportunity  to  recover  her 
position,  so  sadly  compromised  and  even  flouted  in 
the  past.  She  was  able  to  exact  such  large  conces- 
sions from  Francis  Joseph,  the  Emperor,  who  had 
come  to  the  throne  in  1848,  that  they  amounted  to 
a  recognition  of  her  separate  individuality  and  gained 


io8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

her  the  privilege  of  nearly  complete  self-govern- 
ment. The  bargain  that  she  concluded  with  Austria 
was  the  Ausgleich,  as  the  Germans  call  it,  or  the 
Compromise  of  1867,  an  agreement  which  formed  the 
basis  of  the  Hapsburg  Empire  down  to  the  close  of 
the  Great  War. 

The  Compromise  of  1867  created  a  curious  kind  of 
state,  defying  classification,  and  absolutely  unique. 
The  Empire  was  henceforth  to  be  called  Austria- 
Hungary,  and  was  to  be  a  dual  monarchy,  Austria- 
Hungary  was  to  consist  of  two  distinct,  independent 
states,  which  were  to  stand  in  law  upon  a  plane  of 
complete  equality.  Each  was  to  have  its  own  capital, 
the  one  Vienna,  the  other  Budapest.  Both  were  to 
have  the  same  ruler,  who  in  Austria  should  bear  the 
title  of  Emperor,  in  Hungary  that  of  King,  Each  was 
to  have  its  own  Parliament,  its  own  ministry,  its 
own  administration.  Each  was  to  govern  itself  in 
all  internal  affairs  absolutely  without  interference 
from  the  other. 

But  the  two  were  united  not  simply  in  the  person 
of  the  monarch.  They  were  united  for  certain  affairs 
regarded  as  common  to  both.  There  was  to  be  a 
joint  ministry  composed  of  three  departments:  For- 
eign Affairs,  War,  and  Finance.  Each  state  was  to 
have  its  own  Parliament,  but  there  was  to  be  no 
Parliament  in  common.  In  order  then  to  have  a 
body  that  should  supervise  the  work  of  the  three 
joint  ministries  there  was  established  the  system  of 
"  delegations."  Each  Parliament  should  choose  a 
delegation  of  sixty  of  its  members.  These  delega- 
tions should  meet  alternately  in  Vienna  and  Budapest. 


DISTKIOUTlON^OFILiCES 

IN 

AlISTKLVIIUNOvVRY 


KnglUh  AUlrs 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  109 

They  were  really  committees  of  the  two  Parliaments. 
They  were  to  sit  and  debate  separately,  each  using 
its  own  language,  and  they  were  to  communicate 
with  each  other  in  writing.  If  after  three  communi- 
cations no  decision  should  have  been  reached  a  joint 
session  must  be  held  in  which  the  question  was  to 
be  settled  without  debate  by  a  mere  majority  vote. 

Other  affairs,  which  in  most  countries  are  consid- 
ered common  to  all  parts,  such  as  tariff  and  currency 
systems,  were  not  to  fall  within  the  competence  of 
the  joint  ministry  or  the  delegations.  They  were 
to  be  regulated  by  agreements  concluded  between  the 
two  Parliaments  for  periods  of  ten  years,  exactly  as 
between  any  two  independent  states,  an  awkward 
arrangement  destined  to  create  an  intense  strain 
every  decade,  for  the  securing  of  these  agreements 
was  to  prove  most  difficult. 

Each  state  was  to  have  its  own  constitution,  each 
its  own  Parliament,  consisting  of  two  chambers.  In 
neither  was  there  in  1867  universal  suffrage.  A  de- 
mand for  this  has  been  repeatedly  made  in  both  coun- 
tries with  results  that  will  appear  later. 

Neither  of  the  two  states,  thus  recognized  as  form- 
ing the  Dual  Monarchy,  had  a  homogeneous  popula- 
tion. In  each  there  was  a  dominant  race,  the  Ger- 
mans in  Austria,  the  Magyars  in  Hungary.  The  Com- 
promise of  1867  was  satisfactory  to  these  alone.  In 
each  country  there  were  subordinate  and  rival  races, 
jealous  of  the  supremacy  of  these  two,  anxious  for 
recognition  and  for  power,  and  rendered  more  in- 
sistent by  the  sight  of  the  remarkable  success  of  the 
Magyars  in  asserting  their  individuality.    In  Hungary 


no  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

there  were  Croatia,  Slavonia,  and  Transylvania;  in 
Austria  there  were  seventeen  provinces,  each  with 
its  own  Diet,  representing  almost  always  a  variety 
of  races.  Some  of  these,  notably  Bohemia,  had  in 
former  centuries  had  a  separate  statehood,  which 
they  wished  to  recover;  others  were  gaining  an  in- 
creasing self-consciousness,  and  desired  a  future  con- 
trolled by  themselves  and  in  their  own  interests. 

The  struggles  of  these  races  were  destined  to  form 
the  most  important  feature  of  Austrian  history  dur- 
ing the  next  fifty  years.  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
principle  of  nationality,  so  effective  in  bringing  about 
the  unification  of  Italy  and  Germany,  has  tended  in 
Austria  in  precisely  the  opposite  direction,  the  split- 
ting up  of  a  single  state  into  many.  Dualism  was 
established  in  1867,  but  these  subordinate  races  re- 
fused to  acquiesce  in  that  as  a  final  form,  as  dualism 
favored  only  two  races,  the  Germans  and  the  Mag- 
yars. They  wished  to  change  the  dual  into  a  fed- 
eral state,  which  should  give  free  play  to  the  several 
nationalities.  The  fundamental  conflict  all  these 
years  has  been  between  these  two  principles — dual- 
ism and  federalism.  These  racial  and  nationalistic 
struggles  have  been  most  confusing.  In  the  interest 
of  clearness,  only  a  few  of  the  more  important  can 
be  treated  here. 

The  Empire  of  Austria  and  the  Kingdom  of  Hun- 
gary, having  had  different  histories  since  1867,  may 
best  be  treated  separately. 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  in 

The  Empire  of  Austria  Since  1867 

No  sooner  had  Austria  made  the  Compromise  with 
Hungary  than  she  was  confronted  with  the  demand 
that  she  proceed  farther  in  the  path  thus  entered 
upon.  Various  nationahties,  or  would-be  nationali- 
ties, demanded  that  they  should  now  receive  as  liberal 
treatment  as  Hungary  had  received  in  the  Com- 
promise of  1867.  The  leaders  in  this  movement  were 
the  Czechs  of  Bohemia,  who,  in  1868,  definitely  stated 
their  position,  which  was  precisely  that  of  the  Hun- 
garians before  1867.  They  claimed  that  Bohemia  was 
an  historic  and  independent  nation,  united  with  the 
other  states  under  the  House  of  Hapsburg  only  in 
the  person  of  the  monarch.  They  demanded  that  the 
Kingdom  of  Bohemia  should  be  restored,  that  Francis 
Joseph  should  be  crowned  in  Prague  with  the  crown 
of  Wenceslaus.  The  agitation  grew  to  such  an  ex- 
tent that  the  Emperor  decided  to  yield  to  the  Bohe- 
mians. On  September  14,  1871,  he  formally  recog- 
nized the  historic  rights  of  the  Kingdom  of  Bohemia, 
and  agreed  to  be  crowned  king  in  Prague,  as  he  had 
been  crowned  king  in  Budapest.  Arrangements  were 
to  be  made  whereby  Bohemia  should  gain  the  same 
rights  as  Hungary,  independence  in  domestic  affairs 
and  union  with  Austria  and  Hungary  for  certain  gen- 
eral purposes.  The  dual  monarchy  was  about  to  be- 
come a  triple  monarchy. 

But  these  promises  were  not  destined  to  be  carried 
out.  The  Emperor's  plans  were  bitterly  opposed  by 
the  Germans  of  Austria,  who,  as  the  dominant  class 
and  as  also  a  minority  of  the  whole  population,  the 


Ill  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Slavs  being  in  the  majority,  feared  the  loss  of  their 
supremacy,  feared  the  rise  of  the  Slavs,  whom  they 
hated.  They  were  bitterly  opposed,  also,  by  the 
Magyars  of  Hungary,  who  declared  that  this  was  un- 
doing the  Compromise  of  1867,  and  who  feared  par- 
ticularly that  the  rise  of  the  Slavic  state  of  Bohemia 
would  rouse  the  Slavic  peoples  of  Hungary  to  de- 
mand the  same  rights,  and  the  Magyars  were  deter- 
mined not  to  share  with  them  their  privileged  posi- 
tion. The  opposition  to  the  Emperor's  plans  was 
consequently  most  emphatic  and  formidable.  It  was 
also  pointed  out  that  the  management  of  foreign 
affairs  would  be  much  more  difficult  with  three  na- 
tions directing  rather  than  two.  The  Emperor  yielded 
to  the  opposition.  The  decree  that  was  to  place 
Bohemia  on  an  equality  with  Austria  and  Hungary 
never  came.  Dualism  had  triumphed  over  federal- 
ism, to  the  immense  indignation  of  those  who  saw 
the  prize  snatched  from  them.  The  Compromise  of 
1867  remained  unchanged.  The  House  of  Hapsburg 
continued  to  rule  over  a  dual,  not  over  a  federal  state. 
The  racial  problem,  however,  could  not  be  con- 
jured away  so  easily.  It  still  persisted.  For  several 
years  after  this  triumph  the  German  element  con- 
trolled the  Austrian  Parliament.  But,  breaking  up 
finally  into  three  groups  and  incurring  the  animosity 
of  the  Emperor  by  constantly  blocking  some  of  the 
measures  he  desired,  the  Emperor  threw  his  influence 
against  them.  There  ensued  a  ministry  which  lasted 
longer  than  any  other  ministry  has  lasted  and  whose 
policies  were  in  some  respects  of  much  significance. 
This  was  the  Taaffe   ministry  which  was  in  office 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  113 

fourteen  years,  from  1879  to  1893.  Its  policies  fa- 
vored the  development  of  the  Czechs  and  the  Poles, 
two  branches  of  the  Slavic  race.  The  two  races  of 
Bohemia  are  the  Germans  and  the  Czechs.  The  lat- 
ter were  favored  in  various  ways  by  the  Taaffe  min- 
istry, which  was  angry  with  the  Germans.  They  se- 
cured an  electoral  law  which  assured  them  a  majority 
in  the  Bohemian  Diet  and  in  the  Bohemian  delega- 
tion to  the  Reichsrath  or  Austrian  Parliament;  they 
obtained  a  university,  by  the  division  into  two  insti- 
tutions of  that  of  Prague,  the  oldest  German  Univer- 
sity, founded  in  1356.  Thus  there  is  a  German  Uni- 
versity of  Prague  and  a  Czech  University  (1882).  By 
various  ordinances  German  was  dethroned  from  its 
position  as  sole  official  language.  After  1886  office- 
holders were  required  to  answer  the  demands  of  the 
public  in  the  language  in  which  they  were  presented, 
either  German  or  Czech.  This  rule  operated  un- 
favorably for  German  officials,  who  were  usually  un- 
able to  speak  Czech,  whereas  the  Czechs,  as  a  rule, 
spoke  both  languages. 

In  Galicia  the  Poles,  though  a  minority,  obtained 
control  of  the  Diet,  supported  by  the  Taaffe  minis- 
try, and  proceeded  to  oppress  the  Ruthenians,  who, 
while  Slavs,  like  the  Poles  themselves,  belonged  to 
the  Little  Russian  or  Ukrainian  branch  of  that  race; 
in  Carniola  the  Slovenes  proceeded  to  Slavicize  the 
province.  Thus  the  Slavs  were  favored  during 
the  long  ministry  of  Taaffe  and  the  evolution  of  the 
Slavic  nationalities  and  peoples  progressed  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  Germans.  This  is  the  most  striking  dif- 
ference between  the  recent  development  of  Austria 


114  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

and  the  recent  development  of  Hungary.  In  Austria 
the  German  domination  of  the  Slavs  largely  broke 
down  and  was  not  persisted  in,  but  racial  hatreds  con- 
tinued, particularly  between  the  Czechs  and  Germans 
of  Bohemia.  The  Slavic  peoples,  in  Austria,  had  some 
chances  to  develop.  Racial  tyranny,  on  the  other 
hand,  became,  as  we  shall  see,  the  settled  policy  of  the 
dominant  race  of  Hungary.  The  result  was  that 
racial  tension,  though  by  no  means  absent  from  Aus- 
tria, was  for  a  while  considerably  relieved,  whereas 
in  Hungary  it  steadily  increased  until  it  quite  reached 
the  snapping  point. 

A  movement  toward  democracy  also  went  on  under 
the  Taafle  ministry  and  continued  after  its  fall.  The 
agitation  for  universal  suffrage  was  finally  successful. 
By  the  law  of  January  26,  1907,  all  men  in  Austria 
over  twenty-four  years  of  age  were  given  the  right 
to  vote.  The  most  noteworthy  result  of  the  first 
elections  on  this  popular  basis  (May,  1907)  was  the 
return  of  87  Socialists,  who  polled  over  a  million 
votes,  nearly  a  third  of  those  cast.  This  party  had 
previously  had  only  about  a  dozen  representatives. 
It  was  noticed  at  the  same  elections  that  the  racial 
parties  lost  heavily.  Whether  this  meant  that  the 
period  of  extreme  racial  rivalry  was  over  and  the 
struggle  of  social  classes  was  to  succeed  it,  remained 
to  be  seen. 

The  Kingdom  of  Hungary  Since   1867 

Hungary,  a  country  larger  than  Austria,  larger  than 
Great  Britain,  found  her  historic  individuality  defi- 
nitely recognized  and  guaranteed  by  the  Compromise 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  115 

of  1867.  She  had  successfully  resisted  all  attempts 
to  merge  her  with  the  other  countries  subject  to  the 
House  of  Hapsburg.  She  was  an  independent  king- 
dom under  the  crown  of  St.  Stephen.  The  sole  offi- 
cial language  was  Magyar,  which  was  neither  Slavic 
nor  Teutonic,  but  Turanian  in  origin. 

The  political  history  of  Hungary  since  the  Com- 
promise has  been  much  more  simple  than  that  of 
Austria.  Race  and  language  questions  have  been 
fundamental,  but  they  have  been  decided  in  a  sum- 
mary manner.  The  ruling  race  in  1867  was  the  Mag- 
yar, and  it  has  remained  the  ruling  race.  Though 
numerically  in  the  minority  in  1867,  comprising  only 
about  six  millions  out  of  fifteen  millions,  it  was  a 
strong  race,  accustomed  to  rule  and  determined  to 
rule.  This  minority  has  since  1867  been  attempting 
the  impossible — the  assimilation  of  the  majority. 
There  are  four  leading  races  in  Hungary; — the  Mag- 
yar, the  Slav,  the  Roumanian,  the  German.  The 
Roumanians  are  the  oldest,  calling  themselves  Latins 
and  claiming  descent  from  Roman  colonists  of  an- 
cient times.  They  live  particularly  in  the  eastern 
part  of  the  kingdom,  which  is  called  Transylvania. 
They  do  not  constitute  a  solid  block  of  peoples,  for 
there  are  among  them  many  German  or  Saxon  set- 
tlements, and  between  them  and  the  independent 
Kingdom  of  Roumania,  inhabited  by  people  of  the 
same  race,  are  many  Magyars.  The  Slavs  of  Hun- 
gary fall  into  separate  groups.  In  the  northern  part 
of  Hungary  are  the  Slovaks,  of  the  same  race  and 
language  as  the  Czechs  of  Bohemia.  In  the  southern, 
and  particularly  the  southwestern  part,  are  Serbs  and 


ii6  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 


Croatians,  related  to  the  Serbs  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Serbia.     Of  these  the  Croatians  were  the  only  ones 
who  had  a  separate  and  distinct  personality.     They 
had  never  been  entirely  absorbed  in  Hungary,  they 
had  had  their  own  history  and  their  own  institutions. 
In  1868  the  Magyars  made  a  compromise  with  Croa- 
tia, similar  to  the  compromise  they  had  themselves 
concluded  with  Austria  in   the  year  preceding.     In 
regard  to  all  the  other  races,  however,  the  Magyars 
resolved   to  Magyarize  them   early  and  thoroughly. 
This  policy  they  have  steadily  persisted  in.     They 
have  insisted  upon  the  use  of  the  Magyar  language 
in  public  offices,  courts,  schools,  and  in  the  railway 
service — wherever,  in  fact,  it  has  been  possible.     It 
is  stated  that  there  is  not  a  single  inscription  in  any 
post-office  or  railway  station  in  all  Hungary  except 
in  the  Magyar  language.    The  Magyars  have,  in  fact, 
refused  to  make  any  concessions  to  the  various  peo- 
ples who  live  with  them  within  the  boundaries  of 
Hungary.     They  have,  indeed,  tried  in  every  way 
to  stamp  out  all  peculiarities.    For  nearly  fifty  years 
this  policy  has  been  carried  out  and  it  has  not  suc- 
ceeded.   Hungary  has  not  been  Magyarized  because 
the  power  of  resistance  of  Slovaks,  Croatians,  Sla- 
vonians, Roumanians  has  proved  too  strong.    But  in 
the  attempt,  which  has  grown  sharper  and  shriller 
than  ever  in  the  last  decade,  the  Magyar  minority 
has  stopped  at  nothing.    It  has  committed  innumera- 
ble tricks,  acts  of  arbitrary  power,  breaches  of  the 
law,  in  order  to  crush  out  all  opposition.     Political 
institutions  have  been  distorted  into  engines  of  ruth- 
less oppression,  political  life  has  steadily  deteriorated 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  I17 

in  character  and  purpose,  under  the  influence  of  this 
overmastering  purpose  which  has  recognized  no 
bounds.  Hungary,  which  boasts  itself  a  land  of  free- 
dom, has  ensured  freedom  only  to  the  dominant  race, 
the  Magyars.  But  for  the  other  races  Hungary  has 
been  a  land  of  unbridled  despotism.  Every  imagina- 
ble instrument  has  been  used  to  crush  the  Slavs  or 
convert  them  into  Magyars — corruption  and  gross 
illegalities  in  the  administrative  service,  in  the  con- 
trol of  elections,  persecution  of  all  independent  news- 
papers, suppression  of  schools,  the  firm  determination 
to  prevent  these  subject  peoples,  for  that  they  vir- 
tually are  though  theoretically  fellow-citizens,  from 
developing  their  own  languages,  literatures,  arts,  eco- 
nomic life,  ideals.  The  situation  has  been  galling  to 
the  Slavs  and  other  peoples.  Magyar  misrule  has 
steadily  increased  in  intensity,  has  in  our  time  viti- 
ated and  corrupted  the  national  life  and  has  made 
Hungary  a  tinder  box,  where  disaffection  was  bound 
to  blaze  up  at  the  first  opportune  moment.  It  is  an 
odious  history  of  oppression.  Had  the  Magyars  rec- 
ognized that  the  other  races  living  within  Hungary 
had  the  same  rights  as  they,  had  they  adopted  a  pol- 
icy of  fair  play  and  justice,  instead  of  amalgamation 
by  force,  Hungary  would  have  been  in  a  healthy  con- 
dition. Hungary  has  not  been  Magyarized.  But 
racial  animosities  have  been  raised  to  the  highest 
pitch  and  the  time  of  reckoning  has  come  with  the 
Great  War.  Any  detailed  study  of  the  relations  of 
the  dominant  Magyars  with  the  Croatians,  the  Serbs, 
the  Slovaks,  the  Roumanians  would  amply  prove  the 
statements  made. 


ii8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

The  reply  to  these  assertions,  constantly  given  by 
the  apologists  of  the  Magyars,  is  that  Hungarian  law 
expressly  and  carefully  recognizes  the  absolute  equal- 
ity of  all  the  various  elements  and  they  point  to  the 
Law  of  1868,  which  guarantees  the  "  Equal  Rights 
of  Nationalities."  This  law  is  admirable  and  enlight- 
ened and  was  composed  in  the  finely  liberal  spirit  of 
Francis  Deak,  who  indeed  was  its  chief  author.  But 
this  law  is  a  dead  letter,  and  it  has  been  a  dead  letter 
almost  from  the  time  of  its  passage.  It  has  not  been 
repealed,  as  the  advantage  of  having  so  liberal  an 
enactment  to  point  to  for  the  purpose  of  silencing 
critics  and  throwing  dust  in  foreign  eyes  has  been 
apparent  to  the  Magyar  tyrants.  But  the  spirit  of 
Francis  Deak  long  ago  passed  out  of  the  governing 
circles  of  Hungary. 

That  many  Roumanians  in  Transylvania  desire  sep- 
aration from  Hungary  and  incorporation  in  the  King- 
dom of  Roumania,  that  many  of  the  Serbs  or  Slavs 
of  southern  Hungary  desire  annexation  to  the  King- 
dom of  Serbia,  need  occasion  no  surprise.  Had  the 
Slavs  of  Hungary  received  justice,  which  they  never 
have  received,  they  would  not  have  become  an  ele- 
ment of  danger  to  the  state.  There  is  no  evidence 
even  yet  to  show  that  the  Magyars  have  learned  this 
lesson. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century  there 
grew  up  among  the  Magyars  themselves  a  new  party, 
which  still  further  complicated  an  already  complex 
situation.  It  was  called  the  Independence  Party  and 
was  under  the  leadership  of  Francis  Kossuth,  son  of 
Louis  Kossuth  of  1848.     This  party  was  opposed  to 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  1 19 

the  Compromise  of  1867,  and  wished  to  have  Hun- 
gary more  independent  than  she  was.  It  demanded 
that  Hungary  should  have  her  own  diplomatic  corps, 
control  her  relations  with  foreign  countries  independ- 
ently of  Austria,  and  possess  the  right  to  have  her  own 
tarifif.  Particularly  did  it  demand  the  use  of  Magyar 
in  the  Hungarian  part  of  the  army  of  the  Dual  Mon- 
archy— a  demand  pressed  passionately,  but  always  re- 
sisted with  unshaken  firmness  by  the  Emperor,  Fran- 
cis Joseph,  who  considered  that  the  safety  of  the  wState 
was  dependent  upon  having  one  language  in  use  in 
the  army,  that  there  might  not  be  confusion  and  dis- 
aster on  the  battlefield.  Scenes  of  great  violence 
arose  over  this  question,  both  in  Parliament  and  out- 
side of  it,  but  the  Emperor  would  not  yield.  Gov- 
ernment was  brought  to  a  deadlock,  and,  indeed,  for 
several  years  the  Ausgleich  could  not  be  renewed, 
save  by  the  arbitrary  act  of  the  Emperor,  for  a  year 
at  a  time,  Francis  Joseph  finally  threatened,  if  forced 
to  concede  the  recognition  of  the  Hungarian  lan- 
guage, to  couple  with  it  the  introduction  of  universal 
suffrage  into  Hungary,  for  which  there  was  a  grow- 
ing popular  demand.  This  the  Magyars  did  not  wish, 
fearing  that  it  would  rob  them  of  their  dominant  posi- 
tion by  giving  a  powerful  weapon  to  the  politically 
inferior  but  more  numerous  races,  and  that  they 
would,  therefore,  ultimately  be  submerged  by  the 
Slavs  about  them.  In  1914  less  than  twenty-five  per 
cent  of  the  adult  male  population  of  Hungary  pos- 
sessed the  vote.  The  normal  operation  of  political 
institutions  had  for  some  time  been  seriously  inter- 
rupted by   the   violent  character  of  the  discussions 


I20  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

arising  out  of  these  extreme  demands  for  racial  mo- 
nopoly and  national  independence.  Parliamentary 
freedom  had  practically  disappeared  and  at  the  out- 
break of  the  war  Hungary  was  being  ruled  quite 
despotically. 

The  House  of  Hapsburg  lost  during  the  nineteenth 
century  the  rich  Lombardo-Venetian  kingdom  (1859- 
66).  It  gained,  however,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina. 
As  a  result  of  the  Russo-Turkish  War  of  1877  these 
Turkish  provinces  were  handed  over  by  the  Con- 
gress of  Berlin  of  1878  to  Austria-Hungary  to  "oc- 
cupy "  and  "  administer."  The  Magyars  at  the  time 
opposed  the  assumption  of  these  provinces,  wishing 
no  more  Slavs  within  the  monarchy,  but  despite  their 
opposition  they  were  taken  over,  so  strongly  was 
the  Emperor  in  favor  of  it.  The  acquisition  of  these 
Balkan  countries  rendered  Austria-Hungary  a  more 
important  and  aggressive  factor  in  all  Balkan  poli- 
tics, and  in  the  discussions  of  the  so-called  Eastern 
Question,  the  future  of  European  Turkey.  In  Octo- 
ber, 1908  Austria-Hungary  declared  these  provinces 
formally  annexed.  The  great  significance  of  this  act 
will  be  discussed  later  in  connection  with  the  very 
recent  history  of  southeastern  Europe  and  the  causes 
of  the  European  War. 

On  November  21,  1916,  Francis  Joseph  died  after 
a  reign  of  nearly  sixty-eight  years.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  grand-nephew,  who  assumed  the  titl'e 
of  Charles  I. 


CHAPTER  VII 

GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND 

Great  Britain  in  1870  was  in  the  full  tide  of  a  great 
liberal  movement,  which  expressed  itself  in  many 
ways.  Three  years  earlier  there  had  been  passed, 
after  much  discussion  and  curious  complications,  a 
reform  act  which  had  enormously  extended  the  suf- 
frage, had  closed  the  rule  of  the  middle  class,  and  had 
installed  democracy  in  the  state.  By  that  act  the 
number  of  voters  was  doubled.  The  suffrage  was 
still  dependent  upon  the  ownership  of  property,  but 
the  qualilications  were  so  greatly  lowered  that  a  class 
of  the  population,  previously  without  the  franchise, 
now  gained  it,  namely,  the  mass  of  the  working 
classes  living  in  towns  or  cities.  Henceforth,  in  such 
constituencies  all  householders,  irrespective  of  the 
value  of  their  houses,  and  all  lodgers  who  paid  not 
less  than  ten  pounds  a  year  for  their  lodgings,  un- 
furnished, or  about  a  dollar  a  week,  had  the  right  to 
vote.  In  the  counties  or  rural  constituencies  the 
previous  requirements  were  practically  cut  in  half. 
The  number  of  voters  was  now  about  two  and  a 
quarter  millions. 

So  sweeping  was  the  measure  that  the  prime  min- 
ister himself,  Lord  Derby,  called  it  a  "  leap  in  the 
dark."     Carlyle,  forecasting  a  dismal  future,  called  it 


122  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

"  shooting  Niagara."  Robert  Lowe,  whose  memora- 
ble attacks  had  been  largely  instrumental  in  defeating 
a  meager  measure  of  reform  a  year  before,  now  said, 
"  We  must  educate  our  masters."  It  should  be  noted 
that  during  the  debates  on  this  bill,  John  Stuart  Mill 
made  a  strongly  reasoned  speech  in  favor  of  granting 
the  suflFrage  to  women.  The  House  considered  the 
proposition  highly  humorous.  Nevertheless,  this 
movement,  then  in  its  very  beginning,  was  destined 
to  persist  and  grow. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  the  Conservatives  ex- 
pected to  be  rewarded  for  passing  the  Reform  Bill 
of  1867,  as  the  Liberals  had  been  for  passing  that  of 
1832,  thought,  that  is,  that  the  newly  enfranchised 
would,  out  of  gratitude,  continue  them  in  office.  If 
so,  they  were  destined  to  a  great  disappointment,  for 
the  elections  of  1868  resulted  in  giving  the  Liberals 
a  majority  of  a  hundred  and  twenty  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  Gladstone  became  the  head  of  what  was 
to  prove  a  very  notable  ministry. 

Gladstone  possessed  a  more  commanding  majority 
than  any  prime  minister  had  had  since  1832.  As  the 
enlargement  of  the  franchise  in  1832  had  been  suc- 
ceeded by  a  period  of  bold  and  sweeping  reforms,  so 
was  that  of  1867  to  be.  Gladstone  was  a  perfect  rep- 
resentative of  the  prevailing  national  mood.  The 
recent  campaign  had  shown  that  the  people  were 
ready  for  a  period  of  reform,  of  important  construc- 
tive legislation.  Supported  by  such  a  majority,  and 
by  a  public  opinion  so  vigorous  and  enthusiastic, 
Gladstone  stood  forth  master  of  the  situation.  No 
Statesman  could  hope  to  have  more  favorable  condi- 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  123 

tions  attend  his  entrance  into  power.  He  was  the 
head  of  a  strong,  united,  and  resolute  party  and  sev- 
eral men  of  great  ability  were  members  of  his  cabinet. 
The  man  who  thus  became  prime  minister  at  the 
age  of  fifty-nine  was  one  of  the  notable  figures  of 
modern  English  history.  His  parents  were  Scotch. 
His  father  had  hewed  out  his  own  career,  and  from 
small  beginnings  had,  by  energy  and  talent,  made 
himself  one  of  the  wealthiest  and  most  influential 
men  in  Liverpool,  and  had  been  elected  a  member 
of  Parliament.  Young  William  Ewart  Gladstone  re- 
ceived "  the  best  education  then  going  "  at  Eton  Col- 
lege and  Oxford  University,  in  both  of  which  insti- 
tutions he  stood  out  among  his  fellows.  At  Eton 
his  most  intimate  friend  was  Arthur  Hallam,  the 
man  whose  splendid  eulogy  is  Tennyson's  "  In  Memo- 
riam.".  His  career  at  Oxford  was  crowned  by  brilliant 
scholarly  successes,  and  there  he  also  distinguished 
himself  as  a  speaker  in  the  Union,  the  university 
debating  club.  Before  leaving  the  university  his 
thought  and  inclination  were  to  take  orders  in  the 
Church,  but  his  father  was  opposed  to  this  and  the 
son  yielded.  In  1833  he  took  his  seat  in  the  House 
of  Commons  as  representative  for  one  of  the  rotten 
boroughs  which  the  Reform  Bill  of  the  previous  year 
had  not  abolished.  He  was  to  be  a  member  of  that 
body  for  over  sixty  years,  and  for  more  than  half 
that  time  its  leading  member.  Before  attaining  the 
premiership,  therefore,  in  1868,  he  had  had  a  long 
political  career  and  a  varied  training,  had  held  many 
offices,  culminating  in  the  Chancellorship  of  the  Ex- 
chequer and  the  leadership  of  the  House  of  Com- 


124  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

mons.  Beginning  as  a  Conservative  (Macaulay  called 
him  in  1838  the  "  rising  hope  of  the  stern  and  unbend- 
ing Tories  "),  he  came  under  the  influence  of  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  a  man  who,  conservative  by  instinct, 
was  gifted  with  unusual  prescience  and  adaptability, 
and  who  possessed  the  courage  required  to  be  incon- 
sistent, the  wisdom  to  change  as  the  world  changed. 
Gladstone  had,  after  a  long  period  of  transition, 
landed  in  the  opposite  camp,  and  was  now  the  leader 
of  the  Liberal  Party,  By  reason  of  his  business  abil- 
ity, shown  in  the  management  of  the  nation's  finances 
his  knowledge  of  parliamentary  history  and  procedure, 
his  moral  fervor,  his  elevation  of  tone,  his  intrepidity 
and  courage,  his  reforming  spirit,  and  his  remarkable 
eloquence,  he  was  eminently  qualified  for  leadership. 
When  almost  sixty  he  became  prime  minister,  a  posi- 
tion he  was  destined  to  fill  four  times,  displaying  mar- 
velous intellectual  and  physical  energy.  His  adminis- 
tration, lasting  from  1868  to  1874,  is  called  the  Great 
Ministry,  The  key  to  his  policy  is  found  in  his  re- 
mark to  a  friend  when  the  summons  came  from  the 
Queen  for  him  to  form  a  ministry:  "  My  mission  is 
to  pacify  Ireland."  The  Irish  question,  in  fact,  was 
to  be  the  most  absorbing  interest  of  Mr.  Gladstone's 
later  political  career,  dominating  all  four  of  his  minis- 
tries. It  has  been  a  very  lively  and  at  times  a  deci- 
sive factor  in  English  politics  for  the  last  fifty  years. 

To  understand  this  question,  a  brief  survey  of  Irish 
history  in  the  nineteenth  century  is  necessary.  Ire- 
land was  all  through  the  century  the  most  discon- 
tented and  wretched  part  of  the  British  Empire. 
While    England    constantly    grew    in    numbers    and 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  125 

wealth,  Ireland  decreased  in  population,  and  her  mis- 
ery increased.  Ireland  was  inhabited  by  two  peoples, 
the  native  Irish,  who  were  Catholics,  and  settlers 
from  England  and  Scotland,  who  were  for  the  most 
part  Anglicans  or  Presbyterians.  The  latter  were  a 
small  but  powerful  minority. 

The  fundamental  cause  of  the  Irish  question  lay 
in  the  fact  that  Ireland  was  a  conquered  country,  that 
the  Irish  were  a  subject  race.  As  early  as  the  twelfth 
century  the  English  began  to  invade  the  island.  At- 
tempts made  by  the  Irish  at  various  times  during 
six  hundred  years  to  repel  and  drive  out  the  invaders 
only  resulted  in  rendering  their  subjection  more  com- 
plete and  more  galling.  Irish  insurrections  have  been 
pitilessly  punished,  and  race  hatred  has  been  the  con- 
suming emotion  in  Ireland  for  centuries.  The  con- 
test has  been  unequal,  owing  to  the  far  greater  re- 
sources of  England  during  all  this  time.  The  result 
of  this  turbulent  history  was  that  the  Irish  were  a 
subject  people  in  their  own  land,  as  they  had  been 
for  centuries,  and  that  there  were  several  evidences 
of  this  so  conspicuous  and  so  burdensome  that  most 
Irishmen  could  not  pass  a  day  without  feeling  the 
bitterness  of  their  situation.  It  was  a  hate-laden 
atmosphere  which  they  breathed. 

The  marks  of  subjection  were  various.  The  Irish 
did  not  own  the  land  of  Ireland,  which  had  once  be- 
longed to  their  ancestors.  The  various  conquests 
by  English  rulers  had  been  followed  by  extensive  con- 
fiscations of  the  land.  Particularly  extensive  was  that 
of  Cromwell.  These  lands  were  given  in  large  es- 
tates to  Englishmen.     The  Irish  were  mere  tenants. 


126  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

and  most  of  them  tenants-at-will,  on  lands  that  now 
belonged  to  others.  The  Irish  have  always  regarded 
themselves  as  the  rightful  owners  of  the  soil  of  Ire- 
land, have  regarded  the  English  landlords  as  usurpers, 
and  have  desired  to  recover  possession  for  them- 
selves. Hence  there  has  arisen  the  agrarian  ques- 
tion, a  part  of  the  general  Irish  problem. 

Again,  the  Irish  had  long  been  the  victims  of  re- 
ligious intolerance.  At  the  time  of  the  Reformation 
they  remained  Catholic,  while  the  English  separated 
from  Rome.  Attempts  to  force  the  Anglican  Church 
upon  them  only  stiffened  their  opposition.  Neverthe- 
less, at  the  opetiing  of  the  nineteenth  century  they 
were  paying  tithes  to  the  Anglican  Church  in  Ireland, 
though  they  were  themselves  ardent  Catholics,  never 
entered  a  Protestant  church,  and  were  supporting 
their  own  churches  by  voluntary  gifts.  Thus  they 
contributed  to  two  churches,  one  alien,  which  they 
hated,  and  one  to  which  they  were  devoted.  Thus 
a  part  of  the  Irish  problem  was  the  religious  question. 

Again,  the  Irish  did  not  make  the  laws  which  gov- 
erned them.  In<i8oo  their  separate  Parliament  in 
Dublin  was  abolished,  and  from  1801  there  was  only 
one  Parliament  in  Great  Britain,  that  in  London. 
While  Ireland  henceforth  had  its  quota  of  represen- 
tatives in  the  House  of  Commons,  it  was  always  a 
hopeless  minority.  Moreover,  the  Irish  members  did 
not  really  represent  the  large  majority  of  the  Irish, 
as  no  Catholic  could  sit  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
There  was  this  strange  anomaly  that,  while  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Irish  could  vote  for  members  of  Parlia- 
ment, they  must  vote  for  Protestants — a  bitter  mock- 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  127 

ery.  The  Irish  demanded  the  right  to  govern  them- 
selves. Thus  another  aspect  of  the  problem  was 
purely  political. 

The  abuse  just  mentioned  was  removed  in  1829, 
when  Catholic  Emancipation  was  carried,  which 
henceforth  permitted  Catholics  to  sit  in  the  House 
of  Commons.  The  English  statesmen  granted  this 
concession  only  when  forced  to  do  so  by  the  im- 
minent danger  of  civil  war.  The  Irish  consequently 
felt  no  gratitude. 

Shortly  after  Catholic  Emancipation  had  been 
achieved,  the  Irish,  under  the  matchless  leadership 
of  O'Connell,  endeavored  by  much  the  same  methods 
to  obtain  the  repeal  of  the  Union  between  England 
and  Ireland,  effected  in  1801,  and  to  win  back  a  sep- 
arate legislature  and  a  large  measure  of  independ- 
ence. This  movement,  for  some  time  very  formida- 
ble, failed  completely,  owing  to  the  iron  determina- 
tion of  the  English  that  the  union  should  not  be 
broken,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  leader,  O'Connell, 
was  not  willing  in  last  resort  to  risk  civil  war  to 
accomplish  the  result,  recognizing  the  hopelessness 
of  such  a  contest.  This  movement  came  to  an  end 
in  1843.  However,  a  number  of  the  younger  fol- 
lowers of  O'Connell,  chagrined  at  his  peaceful  meth- 
ods, formed  a  society  called  "  Young  Ireland,"  the 
aim  of  which  was  Irish  independence  and  a  republic. 
They  rose  in  revolt  in  the  troubled  year  1848.  The 
revolt,  however,  was  easily  put  down. 

As  if  Ireland  did  not  suffer  enough  from  political 
and  social  evils,  an  appalling  catastrophe  of  nature 
was  added.    The  Irish  famine  of  1845-47  was  a  tragic 


128  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

calamity,  far-reaching  in  its  effects.  It  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  failure  of  the  potato  crop,  the  potato 
being  the  chief  food  of  the  Irish.  More  than  half 
of  the  eight  million  inhabitants  of  Ireland  depended 
upon  it  alone  for  sustenance  and  with  a  large  part 
of  the  rest  it  was  the  chief  article  of  diet.  In  1845 
the  potato  crop  failed  completely.  Famine  resulted 
and  tens  of  thousands  perished  from  starvation.  The 
Corn  Laws  were  repealed  so  as  to  make  wheat  much 
cheaper.  But  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  did  not 
check  the  famine.  The  distress  continued  for  several 
years,  though  gradually  growing  less.  The  potato 
crop  of  1846  was  inferior  to  that  of  1845,  s-^d  the  har- 
vests of  1848  and  1849  were  far  from  normal.  Char- 
ity sought  to  aid,  but  was  insufficient.  The  govern- 
ment gave  money,  and  later  gave  rations.  In  March, 
1847,  over  700,000  people  were  receiving  government 
support.  In  March  and  April  of  that  year  the  deaths 
in  the  workhouses  alone  were  more  than  ten  thou- 
sand a  month.  Peasants  ate  roots  and  lichens,  or 
flocked  to  the  cities  in  the  agony  of  despair,  hoping 
for  relief.  Multitudes  fled  to  England  or  crowded 
the  emigrant  ships  to  America,  dying  by  the  thou- 
sand of  fever  or  exhaustion.  It  was  a  long-drawn- 
out  horror,  and  when  it  was  over  it  was  found  that 
the  population  had  decreased  from  about  8,300,000 
in  1845  to  less  than  6,600,000  in  185 1,  Since  then 
the  decrease  occasioned  by  emigration  has  continued. 
By  1881  the  population  had  fallen  to  5,100,000,  by 
1891  to  4,700,000,  by  191 1  to  about  4,390,000.  Since 
185 1  perhaps  4,000,000  Irish  have  emigrated.  Ire- 
land, indeed,  is  probably  the  only  country  whose  popu- 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  129 

lation  decreased  in  the  nineteenth  century.  Year 
after  year  the  emigration  to  the  United  States  con- 
tinued. 

When  Gladstone  came  into  power  in  1868  he  was 
resolved  to  pacify  the  Irish  by  removing  some  of 
their  more  pronounced  grievances. 

The  question  of  the  Irish  Church,  that  is,  of  the 
Anglican  Church  in  Ireland,  the  church  of  not  more 
than  one-eighth  of  the  population,  yet  to  which  all 
Irishmen,  Catholic  or  Protestant,  paid  tithes,  was  the 
first  grievance  attacked.  In  1869  Gladstone  procured 
the  passage  of  a  law  disestablishing  and  partly  dis- 
endowing this  church.  The  Church  henceforth  ceased 
to  be  connected  with  the  State.  Its  bishops  lost  their 
seats  in  the  House  of  Lords.  It  became  a  voluntary 
organization  and  was  permitted  to  retain  a  large  part 
of  its  property  as  an  endowment.  It  was  to  have  all 
the  church  buildings  which  it  had  formerly  possessed. 
It  was  still  very  rich,  but  the  connection  with  the 
Church  of  England  was  to  cease  January  i,  1871. 

Gladstone  now  approached  a  far  more  serious  and 
perplexing  problem,  the  system  of  land  tenure.  Ire- 
land was  almost  exclusively  an  agricultural  country, 
yet  the  land  was  chiefly  owned  not  by  those  who 
lived  on  it  and  tilled  it,  but  by  a  comparatively  small 
number  of  landlords  who  held  large  estates.  Many 
of  these  were  Englishmen,  absentees,  who  rarely  or 
never  came  to  Ireland,  and  who  regarded  their  es- 
tates simply  as  so  many  sources  of  revenue.  The 
business  relations  with  their  tenants  were  carried  on 
by  agents  or  bailiffs,  whose  treatment  of  the  ten- 
ants was  frequently  harsh  and  exasperating.     If  the 


130  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

peasant  failed  to  pay  his  rent  he  could  be  evicted 
forthwith.  As  he  was  obliged  to  have  land  on  which 
to  raise  his  potatoes,  almost  his  sole  sustenance,  he 
frequently  agreed  to  pay  a  larger  rent  than  the  value 
of  the  land  justified.  Then  in  time  he  would  be 
evicted  and  faced  starvation.  Moreover,  when  a  land- 
lord evicted  his  tenant  he  was  not  obliged  to  pay  for 
any  buildings  or  improvements  erected  or  carried  out 
by  the  tenant.  He  simply  appropriated  so  much  prop- 
erty created  by  the  tenant.  Naturally  there  was  no 
inducement  to  the  peasant  to  develop  his  farm,  for 
to  do  so  meant  a  higher  rent,  or  eviction  and  confis- 
cation of  his  improvements.  It  would  be  hard  to  con- 
ceive a  more  unwise  or  unjust  system.  It  encour- 
aged indolence  and  slothfulness. 

Chronic  and  shocking  misery  was  the  lot  of  the 
Irish  peasantry.  "  The  Irish  peasant,"  says  an  official 
English  document  of  the  time,  "  is  the  most  poorly 
nourished,  most  poorly  housed,  most  poorly  clothed 
of  any  in  Europe;  he  has  no  reserve,  no  capital.  He 
lives  from  day  to  day."  His  house  was  generally  a 
rude  stone  hut,  with  a  dirt  floor.  The  census  of 
1841  established  the  fact  that  in  the  case  of  forty- 
six  per  cent  of  the  population  the  entire  family  lived 
in  a  house,  or,  more  properly,  hut  of  a  single  room. 
Frequently  the  room  served  also  as  a  barn  for  the 
live  stock. 

Stung  by  the  misery  of  their  position,  and  by  the 
injustice  of  the  laws  which  protected  the  landlord 
and  gave  them  only  two  hard  alternatives,  surrender 
to  the  landlord  or  starvation,  believing  that  when 
evicted  they  were  also  robbed,  and  goaded  by  the 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  131 

hopeless  outlook  for  the  future,  the  Irish,  in  wild 
rage,  committed  many  atrocious  agrarian  crimes,  mur- 
ders, arson,  the  killing  or  maiming  of  cattle.  This 
in  turn  brought  a  new  coercion  law  from  the  English 
Parliament  which  only  aggravated  the  evil. 

In  the  Land  Act  now  passed  (1870)  to  remedy  the 
evils  of  this  system  it  was  provided  that,  if  evicted 
for  any  other  reason  than  the  non-payment  of  rent, 
the  tenant  could  claim  compensation.  He  was  also 
to  receive  compensation  for  any  permanent  improve- 
ments he  had  made  on  the  land  whenever  he  should 
give  up  his  holding  for  any  reason  whatever.  There 
were  certain  other  clauses  in  the  bill  designed  to 
enable  the  peasants  to  buy  the  land  outright,  thus 
ceasing  to  be  tenants  of  other  people  and  becoming 
landowners  themselves.  This  could  be  done  only  by 
purchasing  the  estates  of  the  landlords,  and  this  ob- 
viously the  peasants  were  unable  to  do.  It  was  pro- 
vided, therefore,  that  the  state  should  help  the  peas- 
ant up  to  a  certain  amoimt,  he  in  turn  repaying  the 
state  by  easy  installments  for  the  money  loaned. 
This  Land  Act  of  1870  did  not  achieve  what  was 
hoped  from  it,  did  not  bring  peace  to  Ireland.  Land- 
lords found  ways  of  evading  it  and  evictions  became 
more  numerous  than  ever.  Nor  did  the  land  pur- 
chase clauses  prove  effective.  Only  seven  sales  were 
made  up  to  1877.  But  the  bill  was  important  be- 
cause of  the  principles  it  involved,  and  was  to  exer- 
cise a  profound  influence,  upon  later  legislation.  For 
the  time  being  nothing  further  was  done  for  Ireland. 

Another  measure  of  this  active  ministry  was  the 
Forster  Education  Act  of  1870,  designed  to  provide 


132  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

England  with  a  national  system  of  elementary  edu- 
cation. England  possessed  no  such  system,  it  being 
the  accepted  opinion  that  education  was  not  one  of 
the  duties  of  the  state.  The  result  was  that  the  edu- 
cational facilities  were  deplorably  inadequate  and  in- 
ferior to  those  of  many  other  countries.  The  work 
that  the  state  neglected  was  discharged  in  a  meas- 
ure by  schools  which  were  maintained  by  the  various 
religious  denominations,  particularly  the  Anglican, 
also  the  Catholic  and  the  Methodist.  But  in  1869 
it  was  estimated  that  of  4,300,000  children  in  need 
of  education  2,000,000  were  not  in  school  at  all,  1,000,- 
000  were  in  very  inferior  schools,  and  only  1,300,000 
in  schools  that  were  fairly  efficient. 

The  Gladstone  ministry  carried,  in  1870,  a  bill  de- 
signed to  provide  England  for  the  first  time  in  her 
history  with  a  really  national  system  of  elementary 
education.  The  system  then  established  remained 
without  essential  change  until  1902.  It  marked  a 
great  progress  in  the  educational  facilities  of  Eng- 
land. The  bill  did  not  establish  an  entirely  new  edu- 
cational machinery,  to  be  paid  for  by  the  State  and 
managed  by  the  State.  It  adopted  the  church  schools 
on  condition  that  they  submit  to  state  inspection  to 
see  if  they  were  maintaining  a  certain  standard.  In 
that  case  they  would  receive  financial  aid  from  the 
State.  But  where  there  were  not  enough  such  schools, 
local  school  boards  were  to  be  elected  in  each  such 
district  with  power  to  establish  new  schools,  and  to 
levy  local  taxes  for  the  purpose.  Under  this  sys- 
tem, which  provided  an  adequate  number  of  schools 
of  respectable  quality,  popular  education  made  great 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  133 

advances.  In  twenty  years  the  number  of  schools 
more  than  doubled,  and  were  capable  of  accommo- 
dating ail  those  of  school  age.  The  law  of  1870  did 
not  establish  either  free  or  compulsory  or  secular 
education,  but,  in  1880,  attendance  was  made  com- 
pulsory, and  in   1891  education  was  made  free. 

A  number  of  other  far-reaching  reforms,  demo- 
cratic in  their  tendency,  were  carried  through  by  this 
ministry.  The  army  was  reformed  somewhat  along 
Prussian  lines,  though  the  principle  of  compulsory 
military  service  was  not  adopted.  Ofificers'  positions, 
which  had  previously  been  acquired  by  purchase  and 
which  were  therefore  monopolized  by  the  rich,  by  the 
aristocracy,  were  now  thrown  open  to  merit.  The 
Civil  Service  was  put  on  the  basis  of  standing  in  open 
competitive  examinations.  The  universities  of  Ox- 
ford and  Cambridge  were  rendered  thoroughly  na- 
tional by  the  abolition  of  the  religious  tests  which 
had  previously  made  them  a  monopoly  of  the  Church 
of  England.  Henceforth  men  of  any  religious  faith 
or  no  religious  faith  could  enter  them,  could  graduate 
from  them.  The  universities  henceforth  belonged  to 
all  Englishmen. 

The  Australian  ballot  was  introduced,  thus  giving 
to  each  voter  his  independence.  Previously  intimi- 
dation or  bribery  had  been  very  easy,  as  voting  had 
been  oral  and  public;  now  the  voting  was  secret.  An- 
other feature  of  Gladstone's  ministry,  which  cost  him 
much  of  his  popularity  at  home,  but  was  an  act  of 
high  statesmanship  and  an  indisputable  contribution 
to  the  cause  of  peace  among  nations,  was  its  adop- 
tion of  the  principle  of  arbitration  in  the  controversy 


134  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

with  the  United  States  over  the  Alabama  affair.  The 
grievances  of  the  United  States  against  England  be- 
cause of  her  conduct  during  our  Civil  War  were  a 
dangerous  source  of  friction  between  the  two  coun- 
tries for  many  years.  Gladstone  agreed  to  submit 
them  to  arbitration,  but  as  the  decision  of  the  Geneva 
Commission  was  against  England  (1872),  his  minis- 
try suffered  in  popularity.  Nevertheless,  Gladstone 
had  established  a  valuable  precedent.  This  was  the 
greatest  victory  yet  attained  for  the  principle  of  set- 
tling international  difficulties  by  arbitration  rather 
than  by  war.  In  this  sphere  also  this  ministry  ad- 
vanced the  interests  of  humanity,  though  it  drew 
only  disadvantage  for  itself  from  its  service. 

Gladstone  fell  from  power  in  1874  and  the  Con- 
servatives came  in,  with  Benjamin  Disraeli  as  prime 
minister.  Disraeli's  administration  lasted  from  1874 
to  1880.  It  differed  as  strikingly  from  Gladstone's 
as  his  character  differed  from  that  of  his  predecessor. 
As  Gladstone  had  busied  himself  with  Irish  and  do- 
mestic problems,  Disraeli  displayed  his  greatest  inter- 
est in  colonial  and  foreign  affairs.  He  found  the  sit- 
uation favorable  and  the  moment  opportune  for 
impressing  upon  England  the  political  ideal,  long 
germinating  in  his  mind,  succinctly  called  imperial- 
ism, that  is,  the  transcendent  importance  of  breadth 
of  view  and  vigor  of  assertion  of  England's  position 
as  a  world  power,  as  an  empire,  not  as  an  insular 
state.  In  1872  he  had  said:  "In  my  judgment  no 
minister  in  this  country  will  do  his  duty  who  neglects 
any  opportunity  of  reconstructing  as  much  as  possible 
our  colonial  empire,  and  of  responding  to  those  dis- 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  135 

tant  sympathies  which  may  become  the  source  of  in- 
calculable strength  and  happiness  to  this  land."  This 
principle  Disraeli  emphasized  in  act  and  speech  dur- 
ing his  six  years  of  power.  It  was  imperfectly  real- 
ized under  him;  it  was  partially  reconsidered  and  re- 
vised by  Gladstone  upon  his  return  to  power  in  1880. 
But  it  had  definitely  received  lodgment  in  the  mind 
of  England  before  he  left  power.  It  gave  a  new  note 
to  English  politics.  This  is  Disraeli's  historic  signifi- 
cance in  the  annals  of  British  politics.  He  greatly 
stimulated  interest  in  the  British  colonies.  He  in- 
voked "  the  sublime  instinct  of  an  ancient  people." 

His  first  conspicuous  achievement  in  foreign  affairs 
was  the  purchase  of  the  Suez  Canal  shares.  The 
Suez  Canal  had  been  built  by  the  French  against  ill- 
concealed  English  opposition.  Disraeli  had  himself 
declared  that  the  undertaking  would  inevitably  be  a 
failure.  Now  that  the  canal  was  built  its  success  was 
speedily  apparent.  It  radically  changed  the  condi- 
tions of  commerce  with  the  East.  It  shortened 
greatly  the  distance  to  the  Orient  by  water.  Hither- 
to a  considerable  part  of  the  commerce  with  India, 
China,  and  Australia  had  been  carried  on  by  the  long 
voyage  around  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  Some  went 
by  the  Red  Sea  route,  but  that  involved  tranship- 
ment at  Alexandria.  Now  it  could  all  pass  through 
the  canal.  About  three-fourths  of  the  tonnage  pass- 
ing through  the  canal  was  English.  It  was  the  direct 
road  to  India.  There  were  some  400,000  shares  in 
the  Canal  Company.  The  Khedive  of  Egypt  held  a 
large  block  of  these,  and  the  Khedive  was  nearly 
bankrupt.    Disraeli  bought,  in  1875,  his  177,000  shares 


136  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

by  telegraph  for  four  million  pounds,  and  the  fact 
was  announced  to  a  people  who  had  never  dreamed 
of  it,  but  who  applauded  what  seemed  a  brilliant 
stroke,  somehow  checkmating  the  French.  It  was 
said  that  the  highroad  to  India  was  now  secure.  The 
political  significance  of  this  act  was  that  it  determined 
at  least  in  principle  the  future  of  the  relations  of 
England  to  Egypt,  and  that  it  seemed  to  strike  the 
note  of  imperial  self-assertion  which  was  Disraeli's 
chief  ambition  and  which  was  the  most  notable  char- 
acteristic of  his  administration. 

At  the  same  time  Disraeli  resolved  to  emphasize 
the  importance  of  India,  England's  leading  colony,  in 
another  way.  He  proposed  a  new  and  sounding  title 
for  the  British  sovereign.  She  was  to  be  Empress  of 
India.  The  Opposition  denounced  this  as  "  cheap  " 
and  "  tawdry,"  a  vulgar  piece  of  pretension.  Was 
not  the  title  of  King  or  Queen  borne  by  the  sov- 
ereigns of  England  for  a  thousand  years  glorious 
enough?  But  Disraeli  urged  it  as  showing  "the 
unanimous  determination  of  the  people  of  the  coun- 
try to  retain  our  connection  with  the  Indian  Em- 
pire. And  it  will  be  an  answer  to  those  mere  econo- 
mists and  those  diplomatists  who  announce  that  In- 
dia is  to  us  only  a  burden  or  a  danger.  By  passing 
this  bill  then,  the  House  will  show,  in  a  manner  that 
is  unmistakable,  that  they  look  upon  India  as  one  of 
the  most  precious  possessions  of  the  Crown,  and  their 
pride  that  it  is  a  part  of  her  empire  and  governed  by 
her  imperial  throne." 

The  reasoning  was  weak,  but  the  proposal  gave 
great  satisfaction  to  the  Queen,  and  it  was  enacted 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  137 

into  law.  On  January  i,  1877,  the  Queen's  assump- 
tion of  the  new  title  was  officially  announced  in  India 
before  an  assembly  of  the  ruling  princes. 

In  Europe  Disraeli  insisted  upon  carrying  out  a 
spirited  foreign  policy.  His  opportunity  came  with 
the  reopening  of  the  Eastern  Question,  or  the  ques- 
tion of  the  integrity  of  Turkey,  in  1876.  For  two 
years  this  problem  absorbed  the  interest  and  atten- 
tion of  rulers  and  diplomatists,  and  England  had 
much  to  do  with  the  outcome.  This  subject  may, 
however,  be  better  studied  in  connection  with  the 
general  history  of  the  Eastern  problem  in  the  nine- 
teenth century.^ 

Disraeli,  who  in  1876  became  Lord  Beaconsfield, 
continued  in  power  until  1880.  The  emphasis  he  put 
upon  imperial  and  colonial  problems  was  to  exert  a 
considerable  influence  upon  the  rising  generation,  and 
upon  the  later  history  of  England.  Imperial  and  colo- 
nial have  vied  with  Irish  questions  in  dominating 
the  political  discussions  of  England  during  the  last 
forty  years. 

In  1880  the  Liberals  were  restored  to  power  and 
Gladstone  became  prime  minister  for  the  second  time. 
Gladstone's  greatest  ability  lay  in  internal  reform, 
as  his  previous  ministry  had  shown.  This  was  the 
field  of  his  inclination,  and,  as  he  thought,  of  the 
national  welfare.  Peace,  retrenchment,  and  reform, 
the  watchwords  of  his  party,  now  represented  the 
programme  he  wished  to  follow.  But  this  was  not 
to  be.  While  certain  great  measures  of  internal  im- 
provement were  passed  during  the  next  five  years, 

*  See  Chapter  XI. 


'38  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE  ' 

those  years  on  the  whole  were  characterized  by  the 
dominance  of  imperial  and  colonial  questions,  with 
attendant  wars.  Gladstone  was  forced  to  busy  him- 
self with  foreign  policy  far  more  than  in  his  previous 
administration.  Serious  questions  confronted  him  in 
Asia  and  Africa.  These  may  best  be  studied,  how- 
ever, in  the  chapter  on  the  British  Empire.* 

Two  pieces  of  domestic  legislation  of  great  im- 
portance enacted  during  this  ministry  merit  descrip- 
tion, the  Irish  Land  Act  of  1881  and  the  Reform  Bills 
of  1884-85. 

The  legislation  of  Gladstone's  preceding  ministry 
had  not  pacified  Ireland.  Indeed,  the  Land  Act  of 
1870  had  proved  no  final  settlement,  but  a  great  dis- 
appointment. It  had  established  the  principle  that 
the  tenant  was  to  be  compensated  if  deprived  of  his 
farm  except  for  non-payment  of  rent,  and  was  to  be 
compensated,  in  any  case,  for  all  the  permanent  im- 
provements which  he  had  made  upon  the  land.  But 
this  was  not  sufficient  to  give  the  tenant  any  security 
in  his  holding.  It  did  not  prevent  the  landlord  from 
raising  the  rent.  Then  if  the  peasant  would  not  pay 
this  increased  rent  he  must  give  up  his  holding. 
He,  therefore,  had  no  stable  tenure.  In  the  new 
Land  Act  of  1881  Gladstone  sought  to  give  the 
peasant,  in  addition  to  the  compensation  for  im- 
provement previously  secured,  a  fair  rent,  a  fixed 
rent,  one  that  was  not  constantly  subject  to  change  at 
the  will  of  the  landlord,  and  freedom  of  sale,  that  is, 
the  liberty  of  the  peasant  to  sell  his  holding  to  some 
other  peasant.     These  were  the  "  three  F's,"  which 

'  See  Chapter  VIII. 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  139 

had  once  represented  the  demands  of  advanced  Irish- 
men, though  they  no  longer  did.  Henceforth,  the 
rent  was  to  be  determined  by  a  court,  established  for 
the  purpose.  Rents,  once  judicially  determined,  were 
to  be  unchangeable  for  fifteen  years,  during  which 
time  the  tenant  might  not  be  evicted  except  for 
breaches  of  covenant,  such  as  non-payment  of  rent. 
There  was  also  attached  to  the  bill  a  provision  simi- 
lar to  the  one  in  the  preceding  measure  of  1870,  look- 
ing toward  the  creation  of  a  peasant  proprietorship. 
The  Government  was  to  loan  money  to  the  peasants 
under  certain  conditions,  and  on  easy  terms,  to  enable 
them  to  buy  out  the  landlords,  thus  becoming  com- 
plete owners  themselves. 

The  bill  passed,  though  it  was  opposed  with  un- 
usual bitterness.  Landowners,  believing  that  it  meant 
a  reduction  of  rents,  determined  not  by  themselves 
but  by  a  court,  called  it  confiscation  of  property.  It 
was  attacked  because  it  established  the  principle  that 
rents  were  not  to  be  determined,  like  the  price  of 
other  things,  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand;  were 
not  to  be  what  the  landlord  might  demand  and  the 
peasant  agree  to  pay,  but  were  to  be  reasonable  and 
their  reasonableness  was  to  be  decided  by  outsiders, 
judges,  having  no  direct  interest  at  all,  that  is,  in 
last  resort,  by  the  state.  The  bill  was  criticised  as 
altering  ruthlessly  the  nature  of  property  in  land,  as 
establishing  dual  ownership. 

Gladstone  carried  through  at  this  time  the  third  of 
those  great  reform  acts  of  the  nineteenth  century  by 
which  England  has  been  transformed  from  an  oli- 
garchy into  a  democracy.    The  Reform  Bill  of  1832 


140  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

had  given  the  suffrage  to  the  wealthier  members  of 
the  middle  class.  The  Reform  Bill  of  1867  had  taken 
a  long  step  in  the  direction  of  democracy  by  practi- 
cally giving  the  vote  to  the  lower  middle  class  and  the 
bulk  of  the  laboring  class  in  the  boroughs,  but  it  did 
not  greatly  benefit  those  living  in  the  country  dis- 
tricts. The  franchise  in  the  boroughs  was  wider  than 
in  the  counties.  The  result  was  that  laborers  in  bor- 
oughs had  the  vote,  but  agricultural  laborers  did  not. 
There  was  apparently  no  reason  for  maintaining  this 
difference.  Gladstone's  bill  of  1884  aimed  at  the  aboli- 
tion of  this  inequality  between  the  two  classes  of  con- 
stituencies by  extending  the  borough  franchise  to  the 
counties  so  that  the  mass  of  workingmen  would  have 
the  right  to  vote  whether  they  lived  in  town  or  coun- 
try. The  county  franchise,  previously  higher,  was  to 
be  exactly  assimilated  to  the  borough  franchise.  The 
bill  as  passed  doubled  the  number  of  county  voters, 
and  increased  the  total  number  of  the  electorate  from 
over  three  to  more  than  five  millions.  Gladstone's 
chief  argument  was  that  this  measure  would  lay  the 
foundations  of  the  government  broad  and  deep  in  the 
people's  will,  and  "  array  the  people  in  one  solid  com- 
pacted mass  around  the  ancient  throne  which  it  has 
loved  so  well  and  around  a  constitution  now  to  be 
more  than  ever  powerful,  and  more  than  ever  free." 

From  1884  to  1918  there  was  no  further  extension 
of  the  suffrage.  There  were  many  men  who  had  no 
vote  because  they  were  unable  to  meet  any  one  of 
the  various  property  qualifications  that  gave  the  vote; 
for  it  must  be  remembered  that  there  was  no  such 
thing  as   universal   manhood   suffrage   in    England. 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  141 

Only  those  voted  who  had  some  one  of  the  kinds 
of  property  indicated  in  the  various  law^s  of  1832, 
1867,  and  1884.  The  condition  of  the  franchise  was 
historical,  not  rational.  Many  men  possessed  several 
votes;  others  none  at  all.  There  was,  during  this 
period,  a  demand  for  the  enfranchisement  of  all  adult 
males;  there  was  also  a  vigorous  agitation  for  woman's 
suffrage;  and  the  Liberal  party  was  pledged  to  the 
abolition  of  the  practice  of  plural  voting.  There  has 
been  no  redistribution  of  parliamentary  seats  since 
1885.  There  is  no  periodical  adjustment  according 
to  population,  as  in  the  United  States  after  each 
census.  To-day  some  electoral  districts  are  ten,  or 
even  fifteen  times  as  large  as  others.  Constituencies 
range  from  about  13,000  to  over  217,000. 

Gladstone's  second  ministry  fell  in  1885.  There 
followed  a  few  months  of  Conservative  control  under 
Lord  Salisbury.  But  in  1886  new  elections  were 
held  and  Gladstone  came  back  into  power  again, 
prime  minister  for  the  third  time. 

He  was  confronted  by  the  Irish  problem  in  a  more 
acute  form  than  ever  before.  For  the  Irish  were 
now  demanding  a  far-reaching  change  in  govern- 
ment. They  were  demanding  Home  Rule,  that  is, 
an  Irish  Parliament  for  the  management  of  the  in- 
ternal affairs  of  Ireland.  They  had  constantly 
smarted  under  the  injury  which  they  felt  had  been 
done  them  by  the  abolition  of  their  former  Parlia- 
ment, which  sat  in  Dublin,  and  which  was  abolished 
by  the  Act  of  Union  of  1800.  The  feeling  for  nation- 
ality, one  of  the  dominant  forces  of  the  nineteenth 
century  everywhere,  acted  upon  them  with  unusual 


I4a  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

force.  They  disliked,  for  historical  and  sentimental 
reasons,  the  rule  of  an  English  Parliament,  and  the 
sense  as  well  as  reality  of  subjection  to  an  alien  peo- 
ple. They  did  not  wish  the  separation  of  Ireland 
from  England,  but  they  did  wish  a  separate  parlia- 
ment for  Irish  affairs  on  the  ground  that  the  Parlia- 
ment at  Westminster  had  neither  the  time  nor  the 
understanding  necessary  for  the  proper  consideration 
of  measures  affecting  the  Irish.  The  Home  Rule 
party  had  been  slowly  growing  for  several  years 
when,  in  1879,  it  came  under  the  leadership  of  Charles 
Stuart  Parnell,  who,  unlike  the  other  great  leaders 
of  Irish  history,  such  as  Grattan  and  O'Connell,  was 
no  orator  and  was  of  a  cold,  haughty,  distant  nature, 
but  of  an  inflexible  will.  Under  his  able  leadership 
the  party  increased  in  numbers,  in  cohesion,  in  grim 
determination.  Parnell's  object  was  to  make  it  so 
large  that  it  could  hold  the  balance  of  power  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  In  the  Parliament  which  met 
in  1886  the  Home  Rulers  were  in  this  position.  If 
they  united  with  the  Conservatives  the  two  com- 
bined would  have  exactly  the  same  number  of  votes 
as  the  Liberals.  As  the  Conservatives  would  not 
help  them  they  sided  with  the  Liberals. 

Gladstone  entered  upon  his  third  administration 
February  i,  1886.  It  was  his  shortest  ministry,  last- 
ing less  than  six  months.  It  was  wholly  devoted  to 
the  question  of  Ireland.  The  Irish  had  plainly  indi- 
cated their  wishes  in  the  recent  elections  in  return- 
ing a  solid  body  of  85  Home  Rulers  out  of  the  103 
members  to  which  Ireland  was  entitled.  Gladstone 
was  enormously  impressed  by  this  fact,  the  outcome 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  143 

of  the  first  election  held  on  practically  a  democratic 
franchise.  He  had  tried  in  previous  legislation  to 
rule  the  Irish  according  to  Irish  rather  than  English 
ideas,  where  he  considered  those  ideas  just.  He  be- 
lieved the  great  blot  upon  the  annals  of  England 
to  be  the  Irish  chapter,  written,  as  it  had  been,  by 
English  arrogance,  hatred,  and  unintelligence.  Rec- 
onciliation had  been  his  keynote  hitherto.  Moreover, 
to  him  there  seemed  but  two  alternatives — either 
further  reform  along  the  lines  desired  by  the  Irish, 
or  the  old,  sad  story  of  hard  yet  unsuccessful  coer- 
cion. Gladstone  would  have  nothing  more  to  do  with 
the  latter  method.  He,  therefore,  resolved  to  en- 
deavor to  give  to  Ireland  the  Home  Rule  she  plainly 
desired.  On  the  8th  of  April,  1886,  he  introduced 
the  Irish  Government  Bill,  announcing  that  it  would 
be  followed  by  a  Land  Bill,  the  two  parts  of  a  single 
scheme  which  could  not  be  separated. 

The  bill,  thus  introduced,  provided  for  an  Irish 
Parliament  to  sit  in  Dublin,  controlling  a  ministry 
of  its  own,  and  legislating  on  Irish,  as  distinguished 
from  imperial  affairs.  A  difficulty  arose  right  here. 
If  the  Irish  were  to  have  a  legislature  of  their  own 
for  their  own  affairs,  ought  they  still  to  sit  in  the 
Parliament  in  London,  with  power  there  to  mix  in 
English  and  Scotch  affairs?  On  the  other  hand,  if 
they  ceased  to  have  members  in  London,  they  would 
have  no  share  in  legislating  for  the  Empire  as  a  whole. 
"  This,"  says  Morley,  "  was  from  the  first,  and  has 
ever  since  remained,  the  Gordian  knot."  The  bill 
provided  that  they  should  be  excluded  from  the  Par- 
liament at  Westminster.     On  certain  topics  it  was 


144  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

further  provided  that  the  Irish  Parhament  should 
never  legislate :  questions  affecting  the  Crown,  the 
army  and  navy,  foreign  and  colonial  affairs;  nor  could 
it  establish  or  endow  any  religion. 

Gladstone  did  not  believe  that  the  Irish  difficulty 
would  be  solved  simply  by  new  political  machinery. 
There  was  a  serious  social  question  not  reached  by 
this,  the  land  question,  not  yet  solved  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  Irish.  He  introduced  immediately  a 
Land  Bill,  which  was  to  effect  a  vast  transfer  of  land 
to  the  peasants  by  purchase  from  the  landlords,  and 
which  might  perhaps  involve  an  expenditure  to  the 
state  of  about  120,000,000  pounds. 

The  introduction  of  these  bills,  whose  passage 
would  mean  a  radical  transformation  of  Ireland,  pre- 
cipitated one  of  the  fiercest  struggles  in  English  par- 
liamentary annals.  They  were  urged  as  necessary 
to  settle  the  question  once  for  all  on  a  solid  basis, 
as  adapted  to  bring  peace  and  contentment  to  Ire- 
land, and  thus  strengthen  the  Union.  Otherwise,  said 
those  who  supported  them,  England  had  no  alterna- 
tive but  coercion,  a  dreary  and  dismal  failure.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  strongest  opposition  arose  out 
of  the  belief  that  these  bills  imperiled  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  Union.  The  exclusion  of  the  Irish  mem- 
bers from  Parliament  seemed  to  many  to  be  the  snap- 
ping of  the  cords  that  held  the  countries  together. 
Did  not  this  bill  really  dismember  the  British  Em- 
pire? Needless  to  say,  no  British  statesman  could 
urge  any  measure  of  that  character.  Gladstone 
thought  that  his  bills  meant  the  reconciliation  of 
two  peoples  estranged  for  centuries,  and  that  recon- 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  145 

ciliation  meant  the  strengthening  rather  than  the 
weakening  of  the  Empire,  that  the  historic  policy  of 
England  towards  Ireland  had  only  resulted  in  alien- 
ation, hatred,  the  destruction  of  the  spiritual 
harmony  which  is  essential  to  real  unity.  But,  said 
his  opponents,  to  give  the  Irish  a  parliament  of  their 
own,  and  to  exclude  them  from  the  Parliament  in 
London,  to  give  them  control  of  their  own  legisla- 
ture, their  own  executive,  their  own  judiciary,  their 
own  police,  must  lead  inevitably  to  separation.  You 
exclude  them  from  all  participation  in  imperial  af- 
fairs, thus  rendering  their  patriotism  the  more  in- 
tensely local.  You  provide,  it  is  true,  that  they  shall 
bear  a  part  of  the  burdens  of  the  Empire.  Is  this 
proviso  worth  the  paper  it  is  written  on?  Will  they 
not  next  regard  this  as  a  grievance,  this  taxation  with- 
out representation,  and  will  not  the  old  animosity 
break  out  anew?  You  abandon  the  Protestants  of 
Ireland  to  the  revenge  of  the  Catholic  majority  of 
the  new  Parliament.  To  be  sure,  you  provide  for 
toleration  in  Ireland,  but  again  is  this  toleration  worth 
the  paper  it  is  written  on? 

Probably  the  strongest  force  in  opposition  to  the 
bill  was  the  opinion  widely  held  in  England  of  Irish- 
men, that  they  were  thoroughly  disloyal  to  the  Em- 
pire, that  they  would  delight  to  use  their  new  auton- 
omy to  pay  off  old  scores  by  aiding  the  enemies  of 
England,  that  they  were  traitors  in  disguise,  or  un- 
disguised, that  they  had  no  regard  for  property  or 
contract,  that  an  era  of  religious  oppression  and  of 
confiscation  of  property  would  be  inaugurated  by  this 
new  agency  of  a  parliament  of  their  own. 


146  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

The  introduction  of  the  Home  Rule  Bill  aroused 
an  amount  of  bitterness  unknown  in  recent  English 
history.  The  Conservative  party  opposed  it  to  a  man, 
and  it  badly  disrupted  the  Liberal  party.  Nearly 
a  hundred  Liberals  withdrew  and  joined  the  Conserv- 
atives. These  men  called  themselves  Liberal-Union- 
ists, Liberals,  but  not  men  who  were  prepared  to 
jeopardize  the  Union  as  they  held  that  this  measure 
would  do.  The  result  was  that  the  bill  was  beaten 
by  343  votes  to  313. 

Gladstone  dissolved  Parliament  and  appealed  to  the 
people.  The  question  was  vehemently  discussed  be- 
fore the  voters.  The  result  was  disastrous  to  the 
Gladstonian  Home  Rulers.  A  majority  of  over  a 
hundred  was  rolled  up  against  Gladstone's  policy. 

The  consequences  of  this  introduction  of  the  Home 
Rule  proposition  into  British  politics  were  momentous. 
One  was  the  impotence,  for  most  of  the  next  twenty 
years,  of  the  Liberal  party,  A  considerable  fraction 
of  it,  on  the  whole  the  least  democratic,  went  over  to 
the  Conservatives  and  the  result  was  the  creation  of 
the  Unionist  Coalition,  which  for  the  next  twenty 
years,  with  a  single  interruption,  was  to  rule  England. 
The  Unionists  had  a  new  policy,  that  of  Imperialism. 
They  had  preserved  the  Union,  they  thought,  by  de- 
feating Home  Rule.  They  now  went  farther  and  be- 
came the  champions  of  imperial  expansion.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Liberal  party,  now  that  its  more  aris- 
tocratic elements  had  left  it,  became  more  pro- 
nouncedly democratic.  The  line  of  division  between 
the  two  parties  became  sharper.  But  for  the  present 
the  Liberal  party  was  in  the  hopeless  minority. 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  147 

On  the  fall  of  Gladstone,  Lord  Salisbury  came 
into  power,  head  of  a  Conservative  or  Unionist  Gov- 
ernment. The  Irish  question  confronted  it  as  it  had 
confronted  Gladstone's  ministry.  As  it  would  not  for 
a  moment  consider  any  measure  granting  self-gov- 
ernment to  the  Irish,  it  was  compelled  to  govern  them 
in  the  old  way,  by  coercion,  by  force,  by  relentless 
suppression  of  liberties  freely  enjoyed  in  England. 
But  the  policy  of  this  ministry  was  not  simply  nega- 
tive. Holding  that  the  only  serious  Irish  grievance 
was  the  land  problem  and  that,  if  this  were  once 
completely  solved,  then  this  new-fangled  demand  for 
a  political  reform  would  drop  away,  the  Conserva- 
tives adopted  boldly  the  policy  of  purchase  that  had 
been  timidly  applied  in  Gladstone's  Land  Acts  of 
1870  and  1881.  The  idea  was  that  if  only  the  Irish 
could  get  full  ownership  of  their  land,  could  get  the 
absentee  and  oppressive  landlords  out  of  the  way, 
then  they  would  be  happy  and  prosperous  and  would 
no  longer  care  for  such  political  nostrums  as  Home 
Rule. 

The  land  purchase  of  Gladstone's  acts  had  had  no 
great  effect,  as  the  state  had  offered  to  advance  only 
two-thirds  of  the  purchase  price.  The  Conservatives 
now  provided  that  the  state  should  advance  the  whole 
of  it,  the  peasants  repaying  the  state  by  installments 
covering  a  long  period  of  years.  The  Government 
buys  the  land,  sells  it  to  the  peasant,  who  that  instant 
becomes  its  legal  owner,  and  who  pays  for  it  grad- 
ually. He  actually  pays  less  in  this  way  each  year 
than  he  formerly  paid  for  rent,  and  in  the  end  he 
has  his  holding  unencumbered.    This  bill  was  passed 


148  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

in  1891,  and  in  five  years  some  35,000  tenants  were 
thus  enabled  to  purchase  their  holdings  under  its 
provisions.  The  system  was  extended  much  further 
in  later  years,  particularly  by  the  Land  Act  of  1903, 
which  set  aside  a  practically  unlimited  amount  of 
money  for  the  purpose.  From  1903  to  1908  there 
were  about  160,000  purchasers.  Under  this  act,  which 
simply  increased  the  inducements  to  the  landlords  to 
sell,  Ireland  is  becoming  a  country  of  small  free- 
holders. The  earlier  principle  of  dual  ownership  rec- 
ognized in  Gladstone's  land  legislation  of  1881  has 
given  way  completely  to  this  new  principle  of  in- 
dividual ownership,  but  no  longer  individual  owner- 
ship by  the  great  landowners,  but  now  by  the  peas- 
ants, the  inhabitants  of  Ireland,  The  economic  pros- 
perity of  Ireland  has  steadily  increased  in  recent 
years. 

This  ministry  passed  other  bills  of  a  distinctly  lib- 
eral character;  among  them  an  act  absolutely  pro- 
hibiting the  employment  of  children  under  ten,  an 
act  designed  to  reduce  the  oppression  of  the  sweat- 
shop by  limiting  the  labor  of  women  to  twelve  hours 
a  day,  with  an  hour  and  a  half  for  meals,  an  act  mak- 
ing education  free,  and  a  small  allotment  act  intended 
to  create  a  class  of  peasant  proprietors  in  England. 
These  measures  were  supported  by  all  parties.  They 
were  important  as  indicating  that  social  legislation 
was  likely  to  be  in  the  coming  years  more  important 
than  political  legislation,  which  has  proved  to  be  the 
case.  They  also  showed  that  the  Conservative  party 
was  changing  in  character,  and  was  willing  to  assume 
a  leading  part  in  social  reform. 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  149 

In  respect  to  another  item  of  internal  policy,  the 
Salisbury  ministry  took  a  stand  which  has  been  de- 
cisive ever  since.  In  1889  it  secured  an  immense  in- 
crease of  the  navy.  Seventy  ships  were  to  be  added 
at  an  expense  of  21,500,000  pounds  during  the  next 
seven  years.  Lord  Salisbury  laid  it  down  as  a  prin- 
ciple that  the  British  navy  ought  to  be  equal  to  any 
other  two  navies  of  the  world  combined. 

In  foreign  affairs  the  most  important  work  of  this 
ministry  lay  in  its  share  in  the  partition  of  Africa, 
which  will  be  described  elsewhere.^ 

The  general  elections  of  1892  resulted  in  the  re- 
turn to  power  of  the  Liberals,  supported  by  the  Irish 
Home  Rulers,  and  Gladstone,  at  the  age  of  eighty- 
two,  became  for  the  fourth  time  prime  minister,  a 
record  unparalleled  in  English  history.  As  he  him- 
self said,  the  one  single  tie  that  still  bound  him  to 
public  life  was  his  interest  in  securing  Home  Rule 
for  Ireland  before  his  end.  It  followed  necessarily 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  that  public  attention  was 
immediately  concentrated  anew  on  that  question. 
Early  in  1893  Gladstone  introduced  his  second  Home 
Rule  Bill.  The  opposition  to  it  was  exceedingly  bit- 
ter and  prolonged.  Very  few  new  arguments  were 
brought  forward  on  either  side.  Party  spirit  ran 
riot.  Gladstone  expressed  with  all  his  eloquence  his 
faith  in  the  Irish  people,  his  belief  that  the  only  alter- 
native to  his  policy  was  coercion,  and  that  coercion 
would  be  forever  unsuccessful,  his  conviction  that 
it  was  the  duty  of  England  to  atone  for  six  centuries 
of  misrule. 

*  See  Chapter  IX. 


150  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

After  eighty-two  days  of  discussion,  marked  by 
scenes  of  great  disorder,  members  on  one  occasion 
coming  to  blows,  to  the  great  damage  of  decorous 
parliamentary  traditions,  the  bill  was  carried  by  a 
majority  of  34  (301  to  267).  A  week  later  it  was 
defeated  in  the  House  of  Lords  by  419  to  41,  or  a 
majority  of  more  than  ten  to  one.  The  bill  was 
dead. 

Gladstone's  fourth  ministry  was  balked  successfully 
at  every  turn  by  the  House  of  Lords,  which,  under 
the  able  leadership  of  Lord  Salisbury,  recovered  an 
actual  power  it  had  not  possessed  since  1832.  In 
1894  Gladstone  resigned  his  office,  thus  bringing  to 
a  close  one  of  the  most  remarkable  political  careers 
known  to  English  history.  His  last  speech  in  Par- 
liament was  a  vigorous  attack  upon  the  House  of 
Lords.  In  his  opinion,  that  House  had  become  the 
great  obstacle  to  progress.  "  The  issue  which  is 
raised  between  a  deliberative  assembly,  elected  by 
the  votes  of  more  than  6,000,000  people,"  and  an 
hereditary  body,  *'  is  a  controversy  which,  when  once 
raised,  must  go  forward  to  an  issue."  This  speech 
was  his  last  in  an  assembly  where  his  first  had  been 
delivered  sixty-one  years  before.  Gladstone  died  four 
years  later,  and  was  buried  in  Westminster  Abbey 
(1898). 

In  the  elections  of  1895  the  Unionists  secured  a 
majority  of  a  hundred  and  fifty.  They  were  to  re- 
main uninterruptedly  in  power  until  December,  1905. 

Lord  Salisbury  became  prime  minister  for  the  third 
time.  He  remained  such  until  1902,  when  he  with- 
drew from  public  life,  being  succeeded  by  his  nephew. 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  151 

Arthur  James  Balfour.  There  was,  however,  no 
change  of  party.  Lord  Salisbury  had  an  immense 
majority  in  the  House  of  Commons.  His  ministry 
contained  several  very  able  men.  He  himself  as- 
sumed the  Foreign  Office,  Joseph  Chamberlain  the 
Colonial  Ofifice,  Balfour  the  leadership  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  The  withdrawal  of  Gladstone  and  the 
divisions  in  the  Liberal  party  reduced  that  party  to 
a  position  of  ineffective  opposition.  The  Irish  ques- 
tion sank  into  the  background  as  the  Unionists,  reso- 
lutely opposed  to  the  policy  of  an  independent  parlia- 
ment in  Ireland,  declined  absolutely  to  consider  Home 
Rule.  They  did  on  the  other  hand  pass  certain  acts 
beneficial  to  Ireland,  land  purchase  acts  on  a  vast 
scale  and  measures  extending  somewhat  the  strictly 
local  self-government  in  Ireland.  Much  social  and 
labor  legislation  was  also  enacted. 

The  commanding  question  of  this  period  was  to 
be  that  of  imperialism,  and  the  central  figure  was 
Joseph  Chamberlain,  a  man  remarkable  for  vigor  and 
audacity,  and  the  most  popular  member  of  the  cabi- 
net. Chamberlain,  who  had  made  his  reputation  as 
an  advanced  Liberal,  an  advocate  of  radical  social 
and  economic  reforms,  now  stood  forth  as  the  spokes- 
man of  imperialism.  His  office,  that  of  Colonial  Sec- 
retary, gave  him  excellent  opportunities  to  empha- 
size the  importance  of  the  colonies  to  the  mother 
country,  the  desirability  of  drawing  them  closer  to- 
gether, of  promoting  imperial  federation. 

The  sixtieth  anniversary  of  Queen  Victoria's  acces- 
sion occurring  in  1897  was  the  occasion  of  a  remark- 
able demonstration  of  the  loyalty  of  the  colonies  to 


152  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

the  Empire,  as  well  as  of  the  universal  respect  and 
affection  in  which  the  sovereign  was  held.  This  dia- 
mond jubilee  was  an  imposing  demonstration  of  the 
strength  of  the  sentiment  of  union  that  bound  the 
various  sections  of  the  Empire  together,  of  the  ad- 
vantages accruing  to  each  from  the  connection  with 
the  others,  of  the  pride  of  power.  Advantage  was 
taken,  too,  of  the  presence  of  the  prime  ministers  of 
the  various  colonies  in  London  to  discuss  methods 
of  drawing  the  various  parts  of  the  Empire  more 
closely  together.  All  these  circumstances  gave  ex- 
pression to  that  "  imperialism  "  which  was  becoming 
an  increasing  factor  in  British  politics. 

A  period  of  great  activity  in  foreign  and  colonial 
affairs  began  almost  immediately  after  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  new  Unionist  ministry.  It  was  shown 
in  the  recovery  of  the  Soudan  by  Lord  Kitchener, 
but  the  most  important  chapter  in  this  activity  con- 
cerned the  conditions  in  South  Africa,  which  led,  in 
1899,  to  the  Boer  War,  and  which  had  important  con- 
sequences. This  will  better  be  described  elsewhere.^ 
This  war,  lasting  from  1899  to  1902,  much  longer 
than  had  been  anticipated,  absorbed  the  attention  of 
England  until  its  successful  termination.  Internal  leg- 
islation was  of  slight  importance.  During  the  war 
Queen  Victoria  died,  January  22,  1901,  after  a  reign 
of  over  sixty-three  years,  the  longest  in  British  his- 
tory, and  then  exceeded  elsewhere  only  by  the 
seventy-one  years'  reign  of  Louis  XIV  of  France. 
She  had  proved  during  her  entire  reign,  which  began 
in  1837,  a  model  constitutional  monarch,  subordinat- 

'  See  pp.  i8i-i88. 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  153 

ing  her  will  to  that  of  the  people,  as  expressed  by  the 
ministry  and  Parliament.  "  She  passed  away,"  said 
Balfour  in  the  House  of  Commons,  "  without  an  ene- 
my in  the  world,  for  even  those  who  loved  not  Eng- 
land loved  her,"  The  reign  of  Edward  VII  (1901- 
1910),  then  in  his  sixty-second  year,  began. 

When  the  South  African  war  was  over  Parliament 
turned  its  attention  to  domestic  affairs.  In  1902  it 
passed  an  Education  Act  which  superseded  that  of 
Gladstone's  first  ministry,  the  Forster  Act  of  1870, 
already  described.  It  abolished  the  schoolboards 
established  by  that  law.  It  admitted  the  principle 
of  the  support  of  denominational  schools  out  of  taxes. 
In  such  schools  the  head  teacher  must  belong  to  the 
denomination  concerned  and  a  majority  of  the  mana- 
gers of  those  schools  would  also  be  members  of  the 
denomination. 

The  bill  gave  great  offense  to  Dissenters  and  be- 
lievers in  secular  education.  It  authorized  taxation 
for  the  advantage  of  a  denomination  of  which  multi- 
tudes of  taxpayers  were  not  members.  It  was  held 
to  be  a  measure  for  increasing  the  power  of  the 
Church  of  England,  considered  one  of  the  bulwarks 
of  Conservatism. 

The  opposition  to  this  law  was  intense.  Thousands 
refused  to  pay  their  taxes,  and  their  property  was, 
therefore,  sold  by  public  authority  to  meet  the  taxes. 
Many  were  imprisoned.  There  were  over  70,000  sum- 
monses to  court.  The  agitation  thus  aroused  was  one 
of  the  great  causes  for  the  crushing  defeat  of  the 
Conservative  party  in  1905.  Yet  the  law  of  1902  was 
put  into  force  and  remained  the  law  of  England  until 


154  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

1918,  the  Liberals  having  failed  in  1906  in  an  attempt 
to  pass  an  education  bill  of  their  own  to  supersede 
it.  The  educational  system  continued  one  of  the  con- 
tentious problems  of  English  politics. 

The  popularity  of  the  Unionist  ministry  began  to 
wane  after  the  close  of  the  South  African  war.  Much 
of  its  legislation  was  denounced  as  class  legislation 
designed  to  bolster  up  the  Conservative  party,  not 
to  serve  the  interest  of  all  England.  Moreover  a  new 
issue  was  now  injected  into  British  politics  which 
divided  the  Unionists,  as  Home  Rule  had  divided  the 
Liberals,  Chamberlain  came  forward  with  a  proposi- 
tion for  tariff  reform  as  a  means  of  binding  the  Em- 
pire more  closely  together.  He  urged  that  England 
impose  certain  tariff  duties  against  the  outside  world, 
at  the  same  time  exempting  her  colonies  from  their 
operation.  He  called  this  policy  "  colonial  prefer- 
ence." It  would  be  that,  but  it  would  also 
be  the  abandonment  of  the  free  trade  policy  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  adoption  of  the  protective 
system. 

As  the  discussion  of  this  proposal  developed  it  be- 
came apparent  that  Englishmen  had  not  yet  lost 
their  faith  in  free  trade  as  still  greatly  to  their  advan- 
tage, if  not  absolutely  essential  to  their  welfare.  The 
new  controversy  disrupted  the  Unionist  party  and  re- 
united the  Liberals. 

The  result  of  this  increasing  disaffection  was  shown 
in  the  crushing  defeat  of  the  Unionists  and  the  inau- 
guration of  a  very  different  policy  under  the  Liberals. 
Since  December,  1905,  the  Liberal  party  has  been  in 
power,  first  under  the  premiership  of  Sir  Henry  Camp- 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  155 

bell-Bannerman,  and  then,  after  his  death  early  in 
1908,  under  that  of  Herbert  Asquith,  who  gave  way, 
in  December,  1916,  to  Lloyd  George,  a  Liberal,  but 
whose  ministry  was  a  coalition  ministry,  composed 
of  members  of  both  parties.  This  party  won  in  the 
General  Elections  of  1906  the  largest  majority  ever 
obtained  since  1832. 

An  important  achievement  of  this  administration 
was  the  passage  in  1908  of  the  Old  Age  Pensions 
Act,  which  marks  a  long  step  forward  in  the  exten- 
sion of  state  activity.  It  grants,  under  certain  slight 
restrictions,  pensions  to  all  persons  of  a  certain  age 
and  of  a  small  income.  Denounced  as  paternalistic, 
as  socialistic,  as  sure  to  undermine  the  thrift  and  the 
sense  of  responsibility  of  the  laborers  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, it  was  urged  as  a  reasonable  and  proper  recogni- 
tion of  the  value  of  the  services  to  the  country  of  the 
working  classes,  services  as  truly  to  be  rewarded  as 
those  of  army  and  navy  and  administration.  The  act 
provides  that  persons  seventy  years  of  age  whose  in- 
come does  not  exceed  twenty-five  guineas  a  year  shall 
receive  a  weekly  pension  of  five  shillings,  that  those 
with  larger  incomes  shall  receive  proportionately 
smaller  amounts,  down  to  the  minimum  of  one  shil- 
ling a  week.  Those  whose  income  exceeds  thirty 
guineas  and  ten  shillings  a  year  receive  no  pensions. 
It  was  estimated  by  the  prime  minister  that  the  in- 
itial burden  to  the  State  would  be  about  seven  and  a 
half  million  pounds,  an  amount  that  would  necessarily 
increase  in  later  years.  The  post  office  is  used  as  the 
distributing  agent.  This  law  went  into  force  on  Jan- 
uary I,  1909.     On  that  day  over  half  a  million  men 


156  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

and  women  went  to  the  nearest  post  office  and  drew 
their  first  pensions  of  from  one  to  five  shillings,  and 
on  every  Friday  henceforth  as  long  as  they  live  they 
may  do  the  same.  It  was  noticed  that  these  men  and 
women  accepted  their  pensions  not  as  a  form  of  char- 
ity or  poor  relief,  but  as  an  honorable  reward.  The 
statistics  of  those  claiming  under  this  law  were  in- 
structive and  sobering.  In  the  county  of  London 
one  person  in  every  one  hundred  and  seventeen  was 
a  claimant;  in  England  and  Wales  one  in  eighty-six; 
in  Scotland  one  in  sixty-seven ;  in  Ireland  one  in 
twenty-one. 

The  Unionist  party  had  been  in  control  from  1895 
to  1905.  Its  chief  emphasis  had  been  put  upon  prob- 
lems of  imperialism.  Social  legislation  had  slipped 
into  the  background.  But  the  conduct  and  course  of 
the  Boer  War,  the  great  adventure  in  imperialism, 
had  not  increased  the  reputation  for  statesmanship 
or  the  popularity  of  the  Conservatives,  and  their  do- 
mestic legislation  aiming,  as  was  held,  at  the  strength- 
ening of  the  Established  Church  and  the  liquor  trade, 
two  stout  and  constant  defenders  of  the  party, 
exposed  them  to  severe  attack  as  aristocratic,  as  be- 
lievers in  privileged  and  vested  interests,  as  hostile 
to  the  development  of  the  democratic  forces  in  the 
national  life. 

Now  that  the  Liberals  were  in  power  they  turned 
energetically  to  undo  the  class  legislation  of  the  pre- 
vious ministry,  to  remove  the  obstacles  to  the  devel- 
opment of  truly  popular  government.  The  new  Lib- 
eral party  was  more  radical  than  the  old  Liberal 
party  of  the  time  of  the  first  Home  Rule  Bill,  as  the 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  157 

more  conservative  Liberals  had  left  it  then  and  had 
gone  over  to  the  opposition.  Moreover  there  now 
appeared  in  ParHament  a  party  more  radical  still, 
the  Labor  party,  with  some  fifty  members.  Radical 
social  and  labor  legislation  was  now  attempted.  That 
the  existing  social  system  weighed  with  unjust  sever- 
ity upon  the  masses  was  recognized  by  the  ministry. 
"  Property,"  said  Asquith,  "  must  be  associated,  in  the 
mind  of  the  masses  of  the  people,  with  the  ideas  of 
reason  and  justice." 

But  when  the  Liberals  attempted  to  carry  out  their 
fresh  and  progressive  programme  they  immediately 
confronted  a  most  formidable  obstacle.  They  passed 
through  the  House  of  Commons  an  Education  bill, 
to  remedy  the  evils  of  the  Education  Act  of  1902, 
enacted  in  the  interests  chiefly  of  the  Established 
Church;  also  a  Licensing  bill  designed  to  penalize 
the  liquor  trade  which  Conservative  legislation  had 
greatly  favored;  a  bill  abolishing  plural  voting,  which 
gave  such  undue  weight  to  the  propertied  classes,  en- 
abling rich  men  to  cast  several  votes  at  a  time  when 
many  poor  men  did  not  have  even  a  single  vote.  The 
obstacle  encountered  at  every  step  was  the  House  of 
Lords,  which  threw  out  these  bills  and  stood  right 
athwart  the  path  of  the  Liberal  party,  firmly  resolved 
not  to  let  any  ultra-democratic  measures  pass,  firmly 
resolved  also  to  maintain  all  the  ground  the  Con- 
servatives had  won  in  the  previous  administrations. 
A  serious  political  and  constitutional  problem  thus 
arose  which  had  to  be  settled  before  the  Liberals 
could  use  their  immense  popular  majority,  as  shown 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  for  the  enactment  of  Lib- 


158  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

eral  policies.  The  House  of  Lords,  which  was  always 
ruled  by  the  Conservatives,  and  which  was  not,  being 
an  hereditary  body,  subject  to  direct  popular  control, 
now  asserted  its  power  frequently  and,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Liberals,  flagrantly,  by  rejecting  peremptorily 
the  more  distinctive  Liberal  measures.  The  Lords, 
encouraged  by  their  easy  successes  in  blocking  the 
Commons,  blithely  took  another  step  forward,  a  step 
which,  as  events  were  to  prove,  was  to  precede  a  re- 
sounding fall.  The  Lords  in  1909  rejected  the  budget, 
a  far  more  serious  act  of  defiance  of  the  popular 
chamber  than  any  of  these  others  had  been,  and  a 
most  conspicuous  revelation  of  the  spirit  of  confidence 
which  the  Lords  had  in  their  power,  now  being  so 
variously  and  systematically  asserted. 

In  1909  Lloyd  George,  chancellor  of  the  exchequer, 
introduced  the  budget.  He  announced  correctly  that 
two  new  lines  of  heavy  expenditure,  the  payment  of 
old  age  pensions  and  the  rapid  enlargement  of  the 
navy,  necessitated  new  and  additional  taxation.  The 
new  taxes  which  he  proposed  would  bear  mainly  on 
the  wealthy  classes.  The  income  tax  was  to  be  in- 
creased. In  addition  there  was  to  be  a  special  or 
super-tax  on  incomes  of  over  £5,000.  A  distinction 
was  to  be  made  between  earned  and  unearned  in- 
comes— the  former  being  the  result  of  the  labor  of  the 
individual,  the  latter  being  the  income  from  invest- 
ments, representing  no  direct  personal  activity  on  the 
part  of  the  individual  receiving  them.  Unearned  in- 
comes were  to  be  taxed  higher  than  earned.  Inheri- 
tance taxes  were  to  be  graded  more  sharply  and  to 
vary   decidedly    according   to   the   amount   involved. 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  159 

New  taxes  on  the  land  of  various  kinds  were  also 
to  be  levied. 

This  budget  aroused  the  most  vehement  opposi- 
tion of  the  class  of  landowners,  capitalists,  bankers, 
persons  of  large  property  interests,  persons  who  lived 
on  the  money  they  had  inherited,  on  their  invest- 
ments. They  denounced  the  bill  as  socialistic,  as  rev- 
olutionary, as  in  short,  odious  class  legislation  directed 
against  the  rich,  as  confiscatory,  as  destructive  of  all 
just  property  rights. 

The  budget  passed  the  House  of  Commons  by  a 
large  majority.  It  then  went  to  the  House  of  Lords. 
For  a  long  time  it  had  not  been  supposed  that  the 
Lords  had  any  right  to  reject  money  bills,  as  they 
were  an  hereditary  and  not  a  representative  body. 
They,  however,  now  asserted  that  they  had  that  right, 
although  they  had  not  exercised  it  within  the  mem- 
ory of  men.  After  a  few  days  of  debate  they  rejected 
the  budget  by  a  vote  of  350  to  75  (November  30, 1909). 

At  once  was  precipitated  an  exciting  and  momen- 
tous political  and  constitutional  struggle.  The  Lib- 
erals, blocked  again  by  the  hereditary  chamber,  con- 
sisting solely  of  the  aristocracy  of  the  land,  and 
blocked  this  time  in  a  field  which  had  long  been  con- 
sidered very  particularly  to  be  reserved  for  the  House 
of  Commons,  indignantly  picked  up  the  gauntlet 
which  the  Lords  had  thrown  down.  The  House  of 
Commons  voted  overwhelmingly,  349  to  134,  that  the 
action  of  the  Lords  was  "  a  breach  of  the  Constitu- 
tion and  a  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  the  House  of 
Commons."  Asquith  declared  in  a  crowded  House 
that  "  the  House  would  be  unworthy  of  its  past  and 


i6o  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  those  traditions  of  which  it  is  the  custodian  and 
the  trustee,"  if  it  allowed  any  time  to  pass  without 
showing  that  it  would  not  brook  this  usurpation.  He 
declared  that  the  "  power  of  the  purse  "  belonged  to 
the  Commons  alone.  The  very  principle  of  represen- 
tative government  was  at  stake.  For  if  the  Lords 
possessed  the  right  they  had  assumed  the  situation 
was  exactly  this :  that  when  the  voters  elected  a  ma- 
jority of  Conservatives  to  the  Commons  then  the  Con- 
servatives would  control  the  legislation;  that,  when 
they  elected  a  majority  of  Liberals,  the  Conserva- 
tives would  still  control  by  being  able  to  block  all  leg- 
islation they  disliked  by  the  veto  of  the  House  of 
Lords,  always  and  permanently  a  body  adhering  to 
the  Conservative  party.  An  hereditary  body,  not  sub- 
ject to  the  people,  could  veto  the  people's  wishes  as 
expressed  by  the  body  that  was  representative,  the 
House  of  Commons.  In  other  words,  the  aristocratic 
element  in  the  state  was  really  more  powerful  than 
the  democratic,  the  house  representing  a  class  was 
more  powerful  than  the  house  representing  the 
people. 

The  question  of  the  budget  and  the  question  of 
the  proper  position  and  the  future  of  the  Upper 
Chamber  were  thus  linked  together.  As  these  ques- 
tions were  of  exceptional  gravity  the  ministry  re- 
solved to  seek  the  opinion  of  the  voters.  Parliament 
was  dissolved  and  a  new  election  was  ordered.  The 
campaign  was  one  of  extreme  bitterness,  expressing 
itself  in  numerous  deeds  of  violence.  The  election, 
held  in  January,  1910,  resulted  in  giving  the  Union- 
ists a  hundred  more  votes  than  they  had  had  in  the 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  i6i 

previous  Parliament.  Yet  despite  this  gain  the  Lib- 
erals would  have  a  majority  of  over  a  hundred  in  the 
new  House  of  Commons  if  the  Labor  party  and  the 
Irish  Home  Rulers  supported  them,  which  they  did. 

In  the  new  Parliament  the  budget  which  had  been 
thrown  out  the  previous  year  was  introduced  again, 
without  serious  change.  Again  it  passed  the  House 
of  Commons  and  went  to  the  Lords.  That  House 
yielded  this  time  and  passed  the  budget  with  all  its 
so-called  revolutionary  and  socialistic  provisions. 

The  Liberals  now  turned  their  attention  to  this 
question  of  the  "  Lords'  Veto,"  or  of  the  position 
proper  for  an  hereditary,  aristocratic  chamber  in  a 
nation  that  pretended  to  be  democratic,  as  did  Eng- 
land. The  issue  stated  nearly  twenty  years  before  by 
Gladstone  in  his  last  speech  in  Parliament  had  now 
arrived  at  the  crucial  stage.  What  should  be  the 
relations  between  a  deliberative  assembly  elected  by 
the  votes  of  more  than  six  million  voters  and  an 
hereditary  body?  The  question  was  vehemently  dis- 
cussed inside  Parliament  and  outside.  Various  sug- 
gestions for  reform  of  the  House  of  Lords  were  made 
by  the  members  of  that  House  itself,  justly  apprehen- 
sive for  their  future.  The  death  of  the  popular  King 
Edward  VII  (May  6,  1910),  and  the  accession  of 
George  V,  occurring  in  the  midst  of  this  passionate 
campaign,  somewhat  sobered  the  combatants,  though 
only  temporarily.  Attempts  were  made  to  see  if  some 
compromise  regarding  the  future  of  the  House  of 
Lords  might  not  be  worked  out  by  the  two  parties. 
But  the  attempts  were  futile,  the  issue  being  too  deep 
and  too  far-reaching. 


i62  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

The  ministry,  wishing  the  opinion  of  the  people 
on  this  new  question,  dissolved  the  House  of  Com- 
mons again  and  ordered  new  elections,  the  second 
within  a  single  year  (December,  1910).  The  result 
was  that  the  parties  came  back  each  with  practically 
the  same  number  of  members  as  before.  The  Gov- 
ernment's majority  was  undiminished. 

The  Asquith  ministry  now  passed  through  the 
House  of  Commons  a  Parliament  Bill  restricting  the 
power  of  the  House  of  Lords  in  several  important 
particulars  and  providing  that  the  House  of  Com- 
mons should  in  last  resort  have  its  way  in  any  con- 
troversy with  the  other  chamber.  This  bill  passed 
the  House  of  Commons  by  a  large  majority.  How 
could  it  be  got  through  the  House  of  Lords?  Would 
the  Lords  be  likely  to  vote  in  favor  of  the  recogni- 
tion of  their  inferiority  to  the  other  house,  would 
they  consent  to  this  withdrawal  from  them  of  powers 
they  had  hitherto  exercised,  would  they  acquiesce  in 
this  altered  and  reduced  situation  at  the  hands  of  a 
chamber  whose  measures  they  had  been  freely  block- 
ing for  several  years?  Of  course  they  would  not  if 
they  could  help  it.  But  there  is  one  way  in  which 
the  opposition  of  the  House  of  Lords  can  be  over- 
come, no  matter  however  overwhelming.  The  King 
can  create  new  peers — as  many  as  he  likes — enough 
to  overcome  the  majority  against  the  measure  in 
question.  This  supreme  weapon  the  King,  which  of 
course  in  fact  meant  the  Asquith  ministry,  was  now 
prepared  to  use.  Asquith  announced  that  he  had  the 
consent  of  George  V  to  create  enough  peers  to  se- 
cure the  passage  of  the  bill  m  case  it  were  neces- 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  163 

sary.  The  threat  was  sufificient.  The  Lords  on  Au- 
gust 18,  191 1,  passed  the  ParHament  Act,  which  so 
profoundly  altered  their  own  status,  power,  and  pres- 
tige. This  measure  establishes  new  processes  of  law- 
making. If  the  Lords  withhold  their  assent  from 
a  money  bill,  that  is,  any  bill  raising  taxes  or  mak- 
ing appropriations,  for  more  than  one  month  after 
it  has  passed  the  House  of  Commons,  the  bill  may 
be  presented  for  the  King's  signature,  and  on  receiv- 
ing it  becomes  law  without  the  consent  of  the  Lords. 
If  a  bill  other  than  a  money  bill  is  passed  by  the  Com- 
mons in  three  successive  sessions,  whether  of  the 
same  Parliament  or  not,  and  is  rejected  by  the  Lords, 
it  may  on  a  third  rejection  by  them  be  presented  for 
the  King's  assent,  and  on  receiving  that  assent  will 
become  a  law,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
House  of  Lords  has  not  consented  to  the  bill — pro- 
vided that  two  years  have  elapsed  between  the  sec- 
ond reading  of  the  bill  in  the  first  of  those  sessions 
and  the  date  on  which  it  passes  the  Commons  for 
the  third  time. 

This  Parliament  or  Veto  Act  contained  another 
important  provision,  substituting  five  years  for  seven 
as  the  maximum  duration  of  a  Parliament;  that  is, 
members  of  the  Commons  are  henceforth  chosen  for 
five,  not  seven  years.    Their  term  was  thus  reduced. 

Thus  the  veto  power  of  the  House  of  Lords  is  gone 
entirely  for  all  financial  legislation,  and  for  all  other 
legislation  its  veto  is  merely  suspensive.  The  Com- 
mons can  have  their  way  in  the  end.  They  may  be 
delayed  two  years. 

The  way  was  now  cleared  for  the  enactment  of 


i64  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

certain  legislation  desired  by  the  Liberal  party,  which 
could  not  secure  the  approval  of  the  House  of  Lords. 
It  was  possible  finally  to  pass  a  Home  Rule  bill,  to 
the  principle  of  which  the  Liberal  party  had  been 
committed  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  On  April  ii, 
1912,  Asquith  introduced  the  third  Home  Rule  bill, 
granting  Ireland  a  Parliament  of  her  own,  consisting 
of  a  Senate  of  forty  members  and  a  House  of  Com- 
mons of  164.  If  the  two  houses  should  disagree,  then 
they  were  to  sit  and  vote  together.  On  certain  sub- 
jects the  Irish  Parliament  should  not  have  the  right 
to  legislate;  on  peace  or  war,  naval  or  military  af- 
fairs, treaties,  currency,  foreign  commerce.  It  could 
not  establish  or  endow  any  religion  or  impose  any 
religious  disabilities.  The  Irish  were  to  be  repre- 
sented in  the  Parliament  in  London  by  forty-two 
members  instead  of  the  previous  number,  103. 

This  measure  was  passionately  opposed  by  the  Con- 
servative party  and  particularly  by  the  Ulster  party, 
Ulster  being  that  province  of  Ireland  in  which  the 
Protestants  are  strong.  They  went  so  far  in  their 
opposition  as  to  threaten  civil  war,  in  case  Ulster 
were  not  exempted  from  the  operation  of  this  law. 
During  the  next  two  years  the  battle  raged  about 
this  point,  in  conferences  between  political  leaders,  in 
discussions  in  Parliament  and  the  press.  Attempts 
at  compromise  failed,  as  the  Home  Rule  party  would 
not  consent  to  the  exemption  of  a  quarter  of  Ireland 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  proposed  Irish  Parlia- 
ment. 

The  bill  was,  however,  passed  and  was  immediately 
vetoed  by  the  House  of  Lords.     At  the  next  session 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND  1G5 

it  was  passed  again,  and  again  vetoed  by  the  Lords, 
Finally,  on  May  25,  1914,  it  was  passed  a  third  time 
by  the  House  of  Commons  by  a  vote  of  351  to  274, 
a  majority  of  'j'j.  The  bill  was  later  rejected  by  the 
Lords.  It  might  now  become  a  law  without  their 
consent,  in  conformity  with  the  Parliament  Act  of 
191 1.  Only  the  formal  assent  of  the  King  was  nec- 
essary. 

But  the  ministry  was  so  impressed  with  the  vehe- 
mence and  the  determination  of  the  "Ulster  party," 
which  went  so  far  as  to  organize  an  army  and  estab- 
lish a  sort  of  provisional  government,  that  it  decided 
to  continue  discussions  in  order  to  see  whether  some 
compromise  might  not  be  arranged.  These  discus- 
sions were  interrupted  by  the  outbreak  of  the  Euro- 
pean War. 

Meanwhile  a  bill  disestablishing  the  Anglican 
Church  in  Wales  had  gone  through  the  same  pro- 
cess; had  thrice  been  oassed  by  the  Commons  and 
rejected  by  the  Lords.  Like  the  Home  Rule  bill, 
it  only  awaited  the  signature  of  the  sovereign. 

Finally  that  signature  was  given  to  both  bills  on 
September  18,  1914,  but  Parliament  passed  on  that 
same  day  a  bill  suspending  these  laws  from  operation 
until  the  close  of  the  war. 

England  now  had  far  more  serious  things  to  con- 
sider and  she  wisely  swept  the  deck  clean  of  conten- 
tious domestic  matters  until  a  more  convenient  sea- 
son. Whether  the  Home  Rule  Act  when  finally  put 
into  force  would  be  accompanied  with  amendments 
which  would  pacify  the  Protestants  of  Ulster  remains, 
of  course,  to  be  seen. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE 

We  have  thus  far  concerned  ourselves  vi^ith  the 
history  of  the  European  continent.  But  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  features  of  the  nineteenth  century 
was  the  reaching  out  of  Europe  for  the  conquest  of 
the  world.  It  was  not  only  a  century  of  nation  build- 
ing but  also  of  empire  building  on  a  colossal  scale, 
a  century  of  European  emigration  and  colonization, 
a  century  during  which  the  white  race  seized  what- 
ever regions  of  the  earth  remained  still  unappro- 
priated or  were  too  weak  to  preserve  themselves  in- 
violate. Thus  magnificent  imperial  claims  were 
staked  out  by  various  powers  either  for  immediate 
or  for  ultimate  use. 

Many  were  the  causes  of  this  new  Wandering  of 
the  Peoples.  One  was  the  extraordinary  increase 
during  the  century  of  the  population  of  Europe — 
perhaps  a  hundred  and  seventy-five  millions  in  1815, 
more  than  four  hundred  and  fifty  millions  a  century 
later.  This  is  unquestionably  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant facts  in  modern  history,  the  fundamental 
cause  of  the  colossal  emigration.  Another  cause  was 
the  transformation  of  the  economic  system,  the  mar- 
velous increase  in  the  power  of  production,  which 
impelled  the  producers  to  ransack  the  world  for  new 

x66 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  167 

markets  and  new  sources  of  raw  material.  And  an- 
other and  potent  cause  was  the  spectacle  of  the  Brit- 
ish Empire,  which  touched  the  imagination  or  aroused 
the  envy  of  other  peoples,  who,  therefore,  fell  to  imi- 
tating, within  the  range  of  the  possible.  An  exami- 
nation of  the  history  and  characteristics  of  that  Em- 
pire is  essential  to  an  understanding  of  modern 
Europe. 

At  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  England 
possessed  in  the  New  World  the  region  of  the  St. 
Lawrence,  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  Newfound- 
land, Prince  Edward  Island,  and  a  large,  vague  region 
known  as  the  Hudson  Bay  territory;  Jamaica,  and 
other  West  Indian  islands ;  in  Australia,  a  strip  of 
the  eastern  coast;  in  India,  the  Bengal  or  lower 
Ganges  region,  Bombay,  and  strips  along  the  east- 
ern and  western  coasts.  The  most  important  fea- 
ture of  her  colonial  policy  had  been  her  elimina- 
tion of  France  as  a  rival,  from  whom  she  had  taken 
in  the  Seven  Years'  War  (1756- 1763)  almost  all  of 
her  North  American  and  East  Indian  possessions. 
This  Empire  she  increased  during  the  Revolutionary 
and  Napoleonic  wars,  largely  at  the  expense  of 
France,  and  Holland,  the  ally  of  France,  Thus  she 
acquired  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  Guiana  in  South 
America,  Tobago,  Trinidad,  and  St.  Lucia,  Mauritius 
in  the  Indian  Ocean,  and  the  large  island  of  Ceylon. 
In  the  Mediterranean  she  acquired  Malta.  She  also 
obtained  Helgoland,  and  the  protectorate  of  the 
Ionian   Islands. 

Since  1815  her  Empire  has  been  vastly  augumented 
by  a  long  series  of  wars,  and  by  the  natural  advance 


i6S  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  her  colonists  over  countries  contiguous  to  the 
early  settlements,  as  in  Canada  and  Australia.  Her 
Empire  lies  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe. 


India 

The  acquisition  of  India,  a  w^orld  in  itself,  for  the 
British  Crown  was  the  work  of  a  private  commer- 
cial organization,  the  East  India  Company,  which 
was  founded  in  the  sixteenth  century  and  given  a 
monopoly  of  the  trade  with  India.  This  company 
established  trading  stations  in  various  parts  of  that 
peninsula.  Coming  into  conflict  with  the  French, 
and  mixing  in  the  quarrels  of  the  native  princes,  it 
succeeded  in  winning  direct  control  of  large  sections, 
and  indirect  control  of  others  by  assuming  protec- 
torates over  certain  of  the  princes,  who  allied  them- 
selves with  the  English  and  were  left  on  their  thrones. 
This  commercial  company  became  invested  with  the 
government  of  these  acquisitions,  under  the  provi- 
sions of  laws  passed  by  the  English  Parliament  at 
various  times.  In  the  nineteenth  century  the  area 
of  British  control  steadily  widened,  until  it  became 
complete.  Its  progress  was  immensely  furthered  by 
the  overthrow,  after  a  long  and  intermittent  war, 
of  the  Mahratta  confederacy,  a  loose  union  of  Indian 
princes  dominating  central  and  western  India.  This 
confederacy  was  finally  conquered  in  a  war  which 
lasted  from  1816  to  1818,  when  a  large  part  of  its 
territories  were  added  directly  to  the  English  pos- 
sessions, and  other  parts  were  left  under  their  native 
rulers,  who,  however,  were  brought  effectively  under 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  169 

English  control  by  being  obliged  to  conform  to  Eng- 
lish policy,  to  accept  English  Residents  at  their  courts, 
whose  advice  they  were  practically  compelled  to  fol- 
low, and  by  putting  their  native  armies  under  British 
direction.  Such  is  the  condition  of  many  of  them  at 
the  present  day. 

The  English  also  advanced  to  the  north  and  north- 
west, from  Bengal.  One  of  their  most  important  an- 
nexations was  that  of  the  Punjab,  an  immense  terri- 
tory on  the  Indus,  taken  as  a  result  of  two  difficult 
wars  (1845  to  1849),  and  the  Oudh  province,  one  of 
the  richest  sections  of  India,  lying  between  the  Pun- 
jab and  Bengal,  annexed  in  1856. 

The  steady  march  of  English  conquest  aroused  a 
bitter  feeling  of  hostility  to  the  English,  which  came 
to  a  head  in  the  famous  Sepoy  Mutiny  of  1857,  which 
for  a  time  threatened  the  complete  overthrow  of  the 
British  in  northern  India.  This  mutiny  was,  however, 
speedily  suppressed.  Since  then  no  attempts  have 
been  made  to  overthrow  English  control. 

One  important  consequence  of  the  mutiny  of  1857 
was  that,  in  1858,  the  government  of  India  was 
transferred  to  the  Crown  from  the  private  company 
which  had  conducted  it  for  a  century.  It  passed 
under  the  direct  authority  of  England.  In  1876,  as 
we  have  seen,  India  was  declared  an  empire,  and 
Queen  Victoria  assumed  the  title  Empress  of  India, 
January  i,  1877.  This  act  was  officially  announced  in 
India  by  Lord  Lytton,  the  Viceroy,  to  an  imposing 
assembly  of  the  ruling  princes. 

An  Empire  it  surely  is,  with  its  three  hundred 
and  fifteen  milHon  inhabitants.     A  Viceroy  stands 


I70  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

at  the  head  of  the  government.  There  is  a  Secretary 
for  India  in  the  British  Ministry.  The  government 
is  largely  carried  on  by  the  highly  organized  Civil 
Service  of  India,  and  is  in  the  hands  of  about  eleven 
hundred  Englishmen.  About  two  hundred  and  forty- 
four  millions  of  people  are  under  the  direct  control  of 
Great  Britan;  about  seventy  millions  live  in  native 
states  under  native  rulers,  the  "  Protected  Princes  of 
India,"  of  whom  there  were,  a  few  years  ago,  nearly 
seven  hundred.  For  all  practical  purposes,  however, 
these  princes  must  follow  the  advice  of  English  offi- 
cials, or  Residents,  stationed  in  their  capitals. 

Not  only  did  England  complete  her  control  of 
India  in  the  nineteenth  century,  but  she  added  coun- 
tries round  about  India,  Burma  toward  the  east, 
and,  toward  the  west,  Baluchistan,  a  part  of  which 
was  annexed  outright,  and  the  remainder  brought 
under  a  protectorate.  She  also  imposed  a  kind  of 
protectorate  upon  Afghanistan  as  a  result  of  two 
Afghan  wars  (1839-42  and  1878-80). 

British  North  America 

In  1815,  as  already  stated,  Great  Britain  possessed, 
in  North  America,  six  colonies:  Upper  Canada,  Lower 
Canada,  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  Prince  Ed- 
ward Island,  and  Newfoundland.  The  total  popu- 
lation of  these  colonies  was  about  460,000.  The 
colonies  were  entirely  separate  from  each  other.  Each 
had  its  own  government,  and  its  relations  were  not 
with  the  others,  but  with  England.  The  oldest  and 
most  populous  was  Lower  Canada,  which  included 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  171 

Montreal  and  Quebec  and  the  St.  Lawrence  valley. 
This  was  the  French  colony  conquered  by  England 
in  1763.  Its  population  was  French-speaking  and 
Roman  Catholic  in  religion. 

The  two  most  important  of  these  colonies  were 
Lower  Canada,  largely  French,  and  Upper  Canada, 
entirely  English.  Each  had  received  a  constitution 
in  1791,  but  in  neither  colony  did  the  constitution 
work  well  and  the  fundamental  reason  was  that 
neither  the  people  nor  their  legislatures  had  any  con- 
trol over  the  executive.  The  Governor,  who  could 
practically  veto  all  legislation,  considered  himself  re- 
sponsible primarily  to  the  English  Government,  not 
to  the  people  of  the  province.  England  had  not  yet 
learned  the  secret  of  successful  management  of  col- 
onies, despite  the  fact  that  the  lesson  of  the  American 
Revolution  and  the  loss  of  the  thirteen  colonies  a  half 
a  century  earher  was  sufficiently  plain.  It  took  a  sec- 
ond revolt  to  point  the  moral  and  adorn  the  tale.  In 
1837  disaffection  had  reached  such  a  stage  that  revolu- 
tionary movements  broke  out  in  both  Upper  and 
Lower  Canada.  These  were  easily  suppressed  by  the 
Canadian  authorities  without  help  from  England,  but 
the  grievances  of  the  colonists  still  remained. 

The  English  Government,  thoroughly  alarmed  at 
the  danger  of  the  loss  of  another  empire,  adopted  the 
part  of  discretion  and  sent  out  to  Canada  a  commis- 
sioner to  study  the  grievances  of  the  colonists.  The 
man  chosen  was  Lord  Durham,  whose  part  in  the  re- 
form of  1832  had  been  brilHant.  Durham  was  in 
Canada  five  months.  The  report  in  which  he  ana- 
lyzed   the    causes    of    the    rebellion    and    suggested 


172       FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

changes  in  policy  entitles  him  to  the  rank  of  the  great- 
est colonial  statesman  in  British  history.  In  a  word, 
he  adopted  the  dictum  of  Fox,  who  had  said  "  the  only 
method  of  retaining  distant  colonies  with  advantage 
is  to  enable  them  to  govern  themselves."  He  pro- 
posed the  introduction  of  the  cabinet  system  of  gov- 
ernment as  worked  out  in  England.  This  gives  the 
popular  house  of  the  legislature  control  over  the  ex- 
ecutive. 

Durham's  recommendations  were  not  immediately 
followed,  as  to  many  Englishmen  they  seemed 
to  render  the  colonies  independent.  Ten  years  later, 
however,  this  principle  of  ministerial  responsibility 
was  adopted  by  Lord  Elgin  (1847),  the  Governor  of 
Canada  and  the  son-in-law  of  Durham.  His  example 
was  followed  by  his  successors  and  gradually  became 
established  usage.  The  custom  spread  rapidly  to 
the  other  colonies  of  Great  Britain,  which  were  of 
English  stock  and  were  therefore  considered  capable 
of  self-government.  This  is  the  cement  that  holds 
the  British  Empire  together.  For  self-government 
has  brought  with  it  contentment. 

Lord  Durham  had  also  suggested  a  federation  of 
all  the  North  American  colonies.  This  was  brought 
about  in  1867,  when  the  British  North  America  Act, 
which  had  been  drawn  up  in  Canada  and  which  ex- 
pressed Canadian  sentiment,  was  passed  without 
change  by  the  English  Parliament.  By  this  act  Up- 
per and  Lower  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  and  New  Bruns- 
wick were  joined  into  a  confederation  called  the  Do- 
minion of  Canada.  There  was  to  be  a  central  or 
federal  parliament  sitting  in  Ottawa.     There  were 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  173 

also  to  be  local  or  provincial  legislatures  in  each  prov- 
ince to  legislate  for  local  affairs.  Questions  affecting 
the  whole  Dominion  were  reserved  for  the  Dominion 
ParHament. 

The  central  or  Dominion  Parliament  was  to  con- 
sist of  a  Senate  and  a  House  of  Commons,  The  Sen- 
ate was  to  be  composed  of  seventy  members  nomi- 
nated for  life  by  the  Governor-General,  himself  ap- 
pointed by  the  monarch,  and  representing  the  Crown. 
The  House  of  Commons  was  to  be  elected  by  the 
people.  In  some  respects  the  example  of  the  Eng- 
lish Government  was  followed  in  the  constitution,  in 
others  that  of  the  United  States. 

Though  the  Dominion  began  with  only  four  prov- 
inces provision  was  made  for  the  possible  admission 
of  others.  Manitoba  was  admitted  in  1870,  British 
Columbia  in   1871,  Prince  Edward  Island  in   1873. 

In  1846,  by  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon  dispute, 
the  line  dividing  the  English  possessions  from  the 
United  States  was  extended  to  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
and  in  1869  the  Dominion  acquired  by  purchase 
(£300,000)  the  vast  territories  belonging  to  the  Hud- 
son Bay  Company,  out  of  which  the  great  provinces 
of  Alberta  and  Saskatchewan  have  been  carved  and 
admitted  into  the  union  (1905).  The  Dominion  now 
includes  all  of  British  North  America  except  the  is- 
land of  Newfoundland,  which  has  steadily  refused  to 
join.  It  thus  extends  from  ocean  to  ocean.  Except 
for  the  fact  that  she  receives  a  Governor-General  from 
England  and  that  she  possesses  no  treaty  powers, 
Canada  is  practically  independent.  She  manages  her 
own  affairs,  and  even  imposes  tariffs  which  are  dis- 


174  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

advantageous  to  the  mother  country.  That  she  has 
imperial  as  well  as  local  patriotism,  however,  was 
shown  strikingly  in  her  support  of  England  in  the 
South  African  war.  She  sent  Canadian  regiments 
thither  at  her  own  expense  to  cooperate  in  an  enter- 
prise not  closely  connected  with  her  own  fortunes. 
The  same  spirit,  the  same  willingness  to  make  costly 
sacrifices,  were  to  be  shown,  on  a  larger  scale,  in  the 
European  War. 

The  founding  of  the  Canadian  union  in  1867  ren- 
dered possible  the  construction  of  a  great  transcon- 
tinental railway,  the  Canadian  Pacific,  built  between 
1881  and  1885.  This  has  in  turn  reacted  upon  the 
Dominion,  binding  the  different  provinces  together 
and  contributing  to  the  remarkable  development  of 
the  West.  Another  transcontinental  railway  has  re- 
cently been  built  farther  to  the  north.  Canada  is 
connected  by  steamship  lines  with  Europe  and  with 
Japan  and  Australia.  Her  population  has  increased 
from  less  than  five  hundred  thousand  in  1815  to  more 
than  seven  million.  Her  prosperity  has  grown  im- 
mensely, and  her  economic  life  is  becoming  more 
varied.  Largely  an  agricultural  and  timber-produc- 
ing country,  her  manufactures  are  now  developing 
under  the  stimulus  of  protective  tariffs,  and  her  vast 
mineral  resources  are  in  process  of  rapid  develop- 
ment. 

Australia 

In  the  Southern  Hemisphere,  too,  a  new  empire 
was  created  by  Great  Britain  during  the  nineteenth 
century,  an  empire  nearly  as  extensive  territorially 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  175 

as  the  United  States  or  Canada,  about  three-fourths 
as  large  as  Europe,  and  inhabited  almost  entirely  by 
a  population  of  English  descent. 

No  systematic  exploration  of  this  southern  conti- 
nent, Terra  Australis,  was  undertaken  until  toward  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  but  certain  parts  had 
been  sighted  or  traced  much  earlier  by  Spanish  Portu- 
guese, and  particularly  by  Dutch  navigators.  Among 
the  last,  Tasman  is  to  be  mentioned,  who  in  1642 
explored  the  southeastern  portion,  though  he  did  not 
discover  that  the  land  which  was  later  to  bear  his 
name  was  an  island,  a  fact  not  known,  indeed,  for  a 
century  and  a  half.  He  discovered  the  islands  to 
the  east  of  Australia,  and  gave  to  them  a  Dutch  name, 
New  Zealand.  The  Dutch  called  the  Terra  Australis 
New  Holland,  claiming  it  by  right  of  discovery.  But 
they  made  no  attempt  to  occupy  it.  The  attention 
of  the  English  was  first  directed  thither  by  the  famous 
Captain  Cook,  who  made  three  voyages  to  this  region 
between  1768  and  1779.  Cook  sailed  around  New 
Zealand,  and  then  along  the  eastern  coast  of  this 
New  Holland.  He  put  into  a  certain  harbor,  which 
was  forthwith  named  Botany  Bay,  so  varied  was  the 
vegetation  on  the  shores.  Sailing  up  the  eastern 
coast,  he  claimed  it  all  for  George  III,  and  called 
it  New  South  Wales,  because  it  reminded  him  of  the 
Welsh  coast.  Seventeen  years,  however,  went  by 
before  any  settlement  was  made. 

At  first  Australia  was  considered  by  English  states- 
men a  good  place  to  which  to  send  criminals,  and  it 
was  as  a  convict  colony  that  the  new  empire  began. 
The  first  expedition  for  the  colonization  of  the  coun- 


176  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

try  sailed  from  England  in  May,  1787,  with  750  con- 
victs on  board,  and  reached  Botany  Bay  in  January, 
1788.  Here  the  first  settlement  was  made,  and  to  it 
was  given  the  name  of  the  colonial  secretary  of  the 
day,  Sydney.  For  many  years  fresh  cargoes  of  con- 
victs were  sent  out,  who,  on  the  expiration  of  their 
sentences,  received  lands.  Free  settlers  came,  too, 
led  to  emigrate  by  various  periods  of  economic  de- 
pression at  home,  by  promises  of  land  and  food,  and 
by  an  increasing  knowledge  of  the  adaptability  of  the 
new  continent  to  agriculture,  and  particularly  to  sheep 
raising.  By  1820  the  population  was  not  far  from 
40,000.  During  the  first  thirty  years  the  government 
was  military  in  character. 

The  free  settlers  were  strongly  opposed  to  having 
Australia  regarded  as  a  prison  for  English  convicts, 
and  after  1840  the  system  was  gradually  abolished. 
Australia  was  at  first  mainly  a  pastoral  country,  pro- 
ducing wool  and  hides.  But,  in  1851  and  1852,  rich 
deposits  of  gold  were  found,  rivaled  only  by  those 
discovered  a  little  earlier  in  California.  A  tremen- 
dous immigration  ensued.  The  population  of  the  col- 
ony of  Victoria  (cut  of?  from  New  South  Wales)  in- 
creased from  70,000  to  more  than  300,000  in  five 
years.  Australia  has  ever  since  remained  one  of  the 
great  gold-producing  countries  of  the  world. 

Thus  there  gradually  grew  up  six  colonies,  New 
South  Wales,  Queensland,  Victoria,  South  Australia, 
Western  Australia,  and  the  neighboring  island  of 
Tasmania.  These  were  gradually  invested  with  self- 
government,  parliaments,  and  responsible  ministries 
in  the  fashion  worked  out  in  Canada.     The  popula- 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  177 

tion  increased  steadily,  and  by  the  end  of  the  cen- 
tury numbered  about  four  millions. 

The  great  political   event  in  the  history  of  these 
colonies  was  their  union  into  a  confederation  at  the 
close  of  the  century.     Up  to  that  time  the  colonies 
had  been  legally  unconnected  with  each  other,  and 
their  only  form  of  union  was  the  loose  one  under  the 
British  Crown.     For  a  long  time  there  was  discus- 
sion  as   to   the   advisability   of   binding   them   more 
closely  together.    Various  reasons  contributed  to  con- 
vince the  Australians  of  the  advantages  of  federation; 
the    desirability    of    uniform    legislation    concerning 
commercial  and   industrial   matters,   railway   regula- 
tion, navigation,  irrigation,  and  tariffs.    Moreover  the 
desire     for    nationality,    which    accomplished    such 
remarkable  changes  in  Europe  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, was  also  active  here.    An  Australian  patriotism 
had  grown  up.     Australians  desired  to  make  their 
country  the  dominant  authority  in  the  Southern  Hemi- 
sphere.    They  longed  for  a  larger  outlook  than  that 
given  by  the  life  of  the  separate  colonies,  and  thus 
both  reason  and  sentiment  combined  toward  the  same 
end,  a  close  union,  the  creation  of  another  "  colonial 
nation." 

Union  was  finally  achieved  after  ten  years  of  ear- 
nest discussion  (1890-1900).  The  various  experiments 
in  federation  were  carefully  studied,  particularly  the 
constitutions  of  the  United  States  and  Canada.  The 
draft  of  the  constitution  was  worked  over  by  several 
conventions,  by  the  ministers  and  the  governments 
of  the  various  colonies,  and  was  finally  submitted  to 
the  people  for  ratification.    Ratification  being  secured^ 


178  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

the  constitution  was  then  passed  through  the  British 
ParHament  under  the  title  of  "  The  Commonwealth 
of  Australia  Constitution  Act  "  (1900).  The  constitu- 
tion was  the  work  of  the  Australians.  The  part  taken 
by  England  was  simply  one  of  acceptance.  Though 
Parliament  made  certain  suggestions  of  detail,  it  did 
not  insist  upon  them  in  the  case  of  Australian  oppo- 
sition. 

The  constitution  established  a  federation  consisting 
of  the  six  colonies,  which  were  henceforth  to  be  called 
states,  not  provinces,  as  in  the  case  of  Canada.  It 
created  a  federal  Parliament  of  two  houses,  a  Senate 
consisting  of  six  senators  from  each  state,  and  a 
House  of  Representatives  apportioned  among  the  sev- 
eral states  according  to  population.  The  powers  given 
to  the  Federal  Government  were  carefully  defined. 
The  new  system  was  inaugurated  January  i,  1901. 

New  Zealand 

Not  included  in  the  new  commonwealth  is  an  im- 
portant group  of  islands  of  Australasia  called  New 
Zealand,  situated  1,200  miles  east  of  Australia.  Eng- 
land began  to  have  some  connection  with  these 
islands  shortly  after  181 5,  but  it  was  not  until  1839 
that  they  were  formally  annexed  to  the  British  Em- 
pire. In  1854  New  Zealand  was  given  responsible 
government,  and  in  1865  was  entirely  separated  from 
New  South  Wales  and  made  a  separate  colony.  Emi- 
gration was  methodically  encouraged.  New  Zealand 
was  never  a  convict  colony.  Population  increased  and 
it  gradually  became  the  most  democratic  colony  of 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  179 

the  Empire.     In  1907  the  designation  of  the  colony 
was  changed  to  the  Dominion  of  New  Zealand. 

New  Zealand  consists  of  two  main  islands  with 
many  smaller  ones.  It  is  about  a  fourth  larger  than 
Great  Britain  and  has  a  population  of  about  1,000,- 
000,  of  whom  about  50,000  are  aborigines,  the  Maoris. 
Its  capital  is  Wellington,  with  a  population  of  about 
70,000.  Auckland  is  another  important  city.  New 
Zealand  is  an  agricultural  and  grazing  country,  and 
also  possesses  rich  mineral  deposits,  including  gold. 

New  Zealand  is  of  great  interest  to  the  world  of 
to-day  because  of  its  experiments  in  advanced  social 
reform,  legislation  concerning  labor  and  capital,  land- 
owning and  commerce.  State  control  has  been  ex- 
tended over  more  branches  of  industry  than  has  been 
the  case  in  any  other  country. 

The  Government  owns  and  operates  the  railways. 
The  roads  are  run,  not  for  profit,  but  for  service  to 
the  people.  As  rapidly  as  profits  exceed  three  per 
cent  passenger  and  freight  rates  are  reduced.  Com- 
prehensive and  successful  attempts  are  made  by  very 
low  rates  to  induce  the  people  in  congested  districts 
to  live  in  the  country.  Workmen  going  in  and  out 
travel  about  three  miles  for  a  cent.  Children  in  the 
primary  grades  in  schools  are  carried  free,  and  those 
in  higher  grades  at  very  low  fares. 

The  Government  also  owns  and  operates  the  tele- 
graphs and  telephones  and  conducts  postal  savings 
banks.  Life  insurance  is  largely  in  its  hands.  It  has 
a  fire  and  accident  insurance  department.  In  1903 
it  began  the  operation  of  some  state  coal  mines.  Its 
land  legislation  is  remarkable.     Its  main  purpose  is 


i8o  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

to  prevent  the  land  from  being  monopolized  by  a  few, 
and  to  enable  the  people  to  become  landholders.  In 
1892  progressive  taxation  on  the  large  estates  was 
adopted,  and  in  1896  the  sale  of  such  estates  to  the 
government  was  made  compulsory,  and  thus  exten- 
sive areas  have  come  under  government  ownership. 
The  state  transfers  them  under  various  forms  of  ten- 
ure to  the  landless  and  working  classes.  The  system 
of  taxation,  based  on  the  principle  of  graduation, 
higher  rates  for  larger  incomes,  properties,  and  in- 
heritances, is  designed  to  break  up  or  prevent  monop- 
oly and  to  favor  the  small  proprietor  or  producer. 

In  industrial  and  labor  legislation  New  Zealand  has 
also  made  radical  experiments.  Arbitration  in  labor 
disputes  is  compulsory  if  either  side  invokes  it,  and 
the  decision  is  binding.  Factory  laws  are  stringent, 
aiming  particularly  at  the  protection  of  women,  the 
elimination  of  "  sweating."  In  stores  the  Saturday 
half-holiday  is  universal.  The  Government  has  a 
Labor  Department,  whose  head  is  a  member  of  the 
cabinet.  Its  first  duty  is  to  find  work  for  the  unem- 
ployed, and  its  great  effort  is  to  get  the  people  out 
of  the  cities  into  the  country.  There  is  an  Old  Age 
Pension  Law,  enacted  in  1898  and  amended  in  1905, 
providing  pensions  of  about  a  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  dollars  for  all  men  and  women  after  the  age  of 
sixty-five  whose  income  is  less  than  five  dollars  a 
week. 

All  this  governmental  activity  rests  on  a  demo- 
cratic basis.  There  are  no  property  qualifications  for 
voting,  and  women  have  the  suflfrage  as  well  as  men. 
The  referendum  has  been  adopted, 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  i8i 

The  Australian  colony  of  Victoria  has  enacted  much 
legislation  resembling  that  described  in  the  case  of 
New  Zealand. 

British  South  Africa 

As  an  incident  in  the  wars  against  France  and  her 
ally  and  dependent,  Holland,  England  seized  the 
Dutch  possession  in  South  Africa,  Cape  Colony.  This 
colony  she  retained  in  1814,  together  with  certain 
Dutch  possessions  in  South  America,  paying  six  mil- 
lion pounds  as  compensation.  This  was  the  begin- 
ning of  English  expansion  into  Africa,  which  was  to 
attain  remarkable  proportions  before  the  close  of  the 
century.  The  population  at  the  time  England  took 
possession  consisted  of  about  27,000  people  of  Euro- 
pean descent,  mostly  Dutch,  and  of  about  30,000  Afri- 
can and  ]\Ialay  slaves  owned  by  the  Dutch,  and  about 
17,000  Hottentots.  Immigration  of  Englishmen  be- 
gan forthwith. 

Friction  between  the  Dutch  (called  Boers,  i.e., 
peasants)  and  the  English  was  not  slow  in  devel- 
oping. The  forms  of  local  government  to  which  the 
Boers  were  accustomed  were  abolished  and  new  ones 
established.  English  was  made  the  sole  language 
used  in  the  courts.  The  Boers,  irritated  by  these 
measures,  were  rendered  indignant  by  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  1834.  They  did  not  consider  slavery 
wrong.  Moreover,  they  felt  defrauded  of  their  prop- 
erty, as  the  compensation  given  was  inadequate — 
about  three  million  pounds — little  more  than  a  third 
of  what  they  considered  their  slaves  worth. 

The  Boers  resolved  to  leave  the  colony  and  to  set- 


i82  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

tie  in  the  interior,  where  they  could  live  unmolested 
by  the  intruders.  This  migration  or  Great  Trek  be- 
gan in  1836,  and  continued  for  several  years.  About 
10,000  Boers  thus  withdrew  from  Cape  Colony.  Rude 
carts  drawn  by  several  pairs  of  oxen  transported 
their  families  and  their  possessions  into  the  wilder- 
ness. The  result  was  the  founding  of  two  independ- 
ent Boer  republics  to  the  north  of  Cape  Colony, 
namely,  the  Orange  Free  State  and  the  Transvaal 
or  South  African  Republic.  A  most  checkered  ca- 
reer has  been  theirs.  The  Orange  Free  State  was 
declared  annexed  to  the  British  Empire  in  1848,  but 
it  rebelled  and  its  independence  was  recognized  by 
Great  Britain  in  1854.  From  that  time  until  1899 
it  pursued  a  peaceful  career,  its  independence  not 
infringed  upon. 

The  independence  of  the  Transvaal  was  also  rec- 
ognized, in  1852.  But  twenty-five  years  later,  in  1877, 
under  the  strongly  imperialistic  ministry  of  Lord  Bea- 
consfield,  it  was  abruptly  declared  annexed  to  the 
British  Empire,  on  the  ground  that  its  independence 
was  a  menace  to  the  peace  of  England's  other  South 
African  possessions.  The  Boers'  hatred  of  the  Eng- 
lish naturally  expressed  itself  and  they  took  up  arms 
in  the  defense  of  their  rights. 

In  i88o  Lord  Beaconsfield  was  overthrown  and 
Gladstone  came  into  power.  Gladstone  had  de- 
nounced the  annexation,  and  was  convinced  that  a 
mistake  had  been  made  which  must  be  rectified.  He 
was  negotiating  with  the  Boer  leaders,  hoping  to 
reach,  by  peaceful  means,  a  solution  that  would  be 
satisfactory   to   both    sides,   when   his   problem   was 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  183 

made  immensely  more  difficult  by  the  Boers  them- 
selves, who,  in  December,  1880,  rose  in  revolt  and 
defeated  a  small  detachment  of  British  troops  at  Ma- 
juba  Hill,  February  27,  1881.  In  a  military  sense, 
this  so-called  battle  of  Majuba  Hill  was  an  insignifi- 
cant affair,  but  its  effects  upon  Englishmen  and  Boers 
were  tremendous  and  far-reaching.  Gladstone,  who 
had  already  been  negotiating  with  a  view  to  restor- 
ing the  independence  of  the  Transvaal,  which  he  con- 
sidered had  been  unjustly  overthrown,  did  not  think 
it  right  to  reverse  his  policy  because  of  a  mere  skir- 
mish, however  humiliating.  His  ministry,  therefore, 
went  its  way,  not  believing  that  it  should  be  de- 
flected from  an  act  of  justice  and  conciliation  merely 
because  of  a  military  misfortune  of  no  importance 
in  itself.  The  independence  of  the  Transvaal  was 
formally  recognized  with  the  restriction  that  it  could 
not  make  treaties  with  foreign  countries  without  the 
approval  of  Great  Britain  and  with  the  proviso,  which 
was  destined  to  gain  tremendous  importance  later, 
that  "  white  men  were  to  have  full  liberty  to  reside 
in  any  part  of  the  republic,  to  trade  in  it,  and  to  be 
liable  to  the  same  taxes  only  as  those  exacted  from 
citizens  of  the  republic." 

Gladstone's  action  was  severely  criticised  by  Eng- 
lishmen, who  did  not  believe  in  retiring,  leaving  a 
defeat  unavenged.  They  denounced  the  policy  of  the 
ministry  as  hostile  to  the  welfare  of  the  South  Afri- 
can colonies  and  damaging  to  the  prestige  of  the  Em- 
pire. The  Boers,  on  the  other  hand,  considered  that 
they  had  won  their  independence  by  arms,  by  the 
humiliation  of  the  traditional  enemy,  and  were  ac- 


i84  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 


cordingly  elated.  In  holding  this  opinion  they  were 
injuring  themselves  by  self-deception  and  by  the  idea 
that  what  they  had  once  done  they  could  do  again, 
and  they  were  angering  the  British  by  keeping  alive 
the  memory  of  Majuba  Hill.  The  phrase  just  quoted, 
concerning  immigration,  contained  the  germ  of  fu- 
ture trouble,  which  in  the  end  was  to  result  in  the 
violent  overthrow  of  the  republic,  for  a  momentous 
change  in  the  character  of  the  population  was  im- 
pending. 

The  South  African  Republic  was  entirely  inhab- 
ited by  Boers,  a  people  exclusively  interested  in  agri- 
culture and  grazing,  solid,  sturdy,  religious,  freedom- 
loving,  but,  in  the  modern  sense,  unprogressive,  ill- 
educated,  suspicious  of  foreigners,  and  particularly  of 
Englishmen.  The  peace  and  contentment  of  this 
rural  people  were  disturbed  by  the  discovery,  in  1884, 
that  gold  in  immense  quantities  lay  hidden  in  their 
mountains,  the  Rand.  Immediately  a  great  influx  of 
miners  and  speculators  began.  These  were  chiefly 
Englishmen.  In  the  heart  of  the  mining  district  the 
city  of  Johannesburg  grew  rapidly,  numbering  in  a 
few  years  over  100,000  inhabitants,  a  city  of  foreign- 
ers. Troubles  quickly  arose  between  the  native  Boers 
and  the  aggressive,  energetic  Uitlanders  or  foreigners. 

The  Uitlanders  gave  wide  publicity  to  their  griev- 
ances. Great  obstacles  were  put  in  the  way  of  their 
naturalization ;  the>  were  given  no  share  in  the  gov- 
ernment, not  even  the  right  to  vote.  Yet  in  parts  of 
the  Transvaal  they  were  more  numerous  than  the 
natives,  and  bore  the  larger  share  of  taxation.  In 
addition  they  were  forced  to  render  military  service. 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  185 

which,  in  their  opinion,  impHed  citizenship.  They 
looked  to  the  British  Government  to  push  their  de- 
mand for  reforms.  The  Boer  Government  w^as  un- 
doubtedly an  oligarchy,  but  the  Boers  felt  that  it  was 
only  by  refusing  the  suffrage  to  the  unwelcome  in- 
truders that  they  could  keep  control  of  their  own 
state,  which  at  the  cost  of  much  hardship  they  had 
created  in  the  wilderness.  In  1895  occurred  an  event 
which  deeply  embittered  them,  the  Jameson  Raid — 
an  invasion  of  the  Transvaal  by  a  few  hundred  troop- 
ers under  Dr.  Jameson,  the  administrator  of  Rhode- 
sia, with  the  apparent  purpose  of  overthrowing  the 
Boer  Government.  The  raiders  were  easily  captured 
by  the  Boers,  who,  with  great  magnanimity,  handed 
them  over  to  England,  This  indefensible  attack  and 
the  fact  that  the  guilty  were  only  lightly  punished 
in  England,  and  that  the  man  whom  all  Boers  held 
responsible  as  the  arch-conspirator,  Cecil  Rhodes,  was 
shielded  by  the  British  Government,  entered  like 
iron  into  the  souls  of  the  Boers  and  only  hardened 
their  resistance  to  the  demands  of  the  Uitlanders. 
These  demands  were  refused  and  the  grievances  of 
the  Uitlanders,  who  now  outnumbered  the  natives 
perhaps  two  to  one,  continued.  Friction  steadily  in- 
creased. The  British  charged  that  the  Boers  were 
aiming  at  nothing  less  than  the  ultimate  expulsion 
of  the  English  from  South  Africa;  the  Boers  charged 
that  the  British  were  aiming  at  the  extinction  of  the 
two  Boer  republics.  There  was  no  spirit  of  concilia- 
tion in  either  government. 

Joseph  Chamberlain,  British  Colonial  Secretary,  was 
arrogant  and  insolent.    Paul  Kruger,  President  of  the 


i86  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Transvaal,  was  obstinate  and  ill-informed.    Ultimately 
in  October,  1899,  the  Boers  declared  war  upon  Great 
Britain.     The   Orange   Free  State,  no   party  to   the 
quarrel,  threw  in  its  lot  with  its  sister  Boer  republic. 
This  war  was  lightly  entered  upon  by  both  sides. 
Each  grossly  underestimated  both  the  resources  and 
the   spirit  of   the   other.     The   English   Government 
had  made  no  preparation  at  all  adequate,  apparently 
not  believing  that  in  the  end  this  petty  state  would 
dare  oppose  the  mighty  British  Empire.     The  Boers, 
on  the  other  hand,  had  been  long  preparing  for  a 
conflict,  and  knew  that  the  number  of  British  troops 
in  South  Africa  was  small,  totally  insufficient  to  put 
down  their  resistance.     Moreover,  for  years  they  had 
deceived  themselves  with  a  gross  exaggeration  of  the 
significance  of  Majuba  Hill  as  a  victory  over  the  Brit- 
ish.   Each  side  believed  that  the  war  would  be  short, 
and  would  result  in  its  favor. 

The  war,  which  they  supposed  would  be  over  in  a 
few  months,  lasted  for  nearly  three  years.  England 
suffered  at  the  outset  many  humiHating  reverses. 
The  war  was  not  characterized  by  great  battles,  but 
by  many  sieges  at  first,  and  then  by  guerilla  fight- 
ing and  elaborate,  systematic,  and  difficult  conquest 
of  the  country.  It  was  fought  with  great  bravery  on 
both  sides.  For  the  English,  Lord  Roberts  and  Lord 
Kitchener  were  the  leaders,  and  of  the  Boers  several 
greatly  distinguished  themselves,  obtaining  world- 
wide reputations.  Christian  de  Wet,  Louis  Botha, 
Delarey. 

The  English  won  in  the  end  by  sheer  force  of  num- 
bers and  peace  was  finally  concluded  on  June  i,  1902. 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  187 

The  Transvaal  and  the  Orange  Free  State  lost  their 
independence,  and  became  colonies  of  the  British  Em- 
pire. Otherwise  the  terms  offered  by  the  conquerors 
were  liberal.  Generous  money  grants  and  loans  were 
to  be  made  by  England  to  enable  the  Boers  to  begin 
again  in  their  sadly  devastated  land.  Their  language 
was  to  be  respected  wherever  possible. 

The  work  of  reconciliation  has  proceeded  with  re- 
markable rapidity  since  the  close  of  the  war.  Re- 
sponsible government,  that  is,  self-government,  was 
granted  to  the  Transvaal  Colony  in  1906  and  to  the 
Orange  River  Colony  in  1907.  This  liberal  conduct 
of  the  English  Government  had  the  most  happy  con- 
sequences, as  was  shown  very  convincingly  by  the 
spontaneity  and  the  strength  of  the  movement  for 
closer  union,  which  culminated  in  1909  in  the  crea- 
tion of  a  new  "  colonial  nation  "  within  the  British 
Empire.  In  1908  a  convention  was  held  in  which 
the  four  colonies  were  represented.  The  outcome  of 
its  deliberations,  which  lasted  several  months,  was 
the  draft  of  a  constitution  for  the  South  African 
Union.  This  was  then  submitted  to  the  colonies  for 
approval  and,  by  June,  1909,  had  been  ratified  by 
them  all.  The  constitution  was  in  the  form  of  a 
statute  to  be  enacted  by  the  British  Parliament.  It 
became  law  September  20,  1909. 

The  South  African  Union  was  the  work  of  the 
South  Africans  themselves,  the  former  enemies,  Boers 
and  British,  harmoniously  cooperating.  The  central 
government  consists  of  a  Governor-General  appointed 
by  the  Crown;  an  Executive  Council;  a  Senate  and 
a  House  of  Assembly.     Both  Dutch  and  English  are 


,i88  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

official  languages  and  enjoy  equal  privileges.  Diffi- 
culty was  experienced  in  selecting  the  capital,  so  in- 
tense was  the  rivalry  of  different  cities.  The  result 
was  a  compromise.  Pretoria  was  chosen  as  the  seat 
of  the  executive  branch  of  the  government,  Cape 
Town  as  the  seat  of  the  legislative  branch. 

The  creation  of  the  South  African  Union  is  the 
most  recent  triumph  of  the  spirit  of  nationality  which 
so  greatly  transformed  the  world  during  the  nine- 
teenth century.  The  new  commonwealth  has  a  popu- 
lation of  about  1,150,000  whites  and  more  than  6,000,- 
000  people  of  non-European  descent.  Provision  has 
been  made  for  the  ultimate  admission  of  Rhodesia  into 
the  Union. 

Imperial  Federation 

At  the  opening  of  the  twentieth  century  Great 
Britain  possessed  an  empire  far  more  extensive  and 
far  more  populous  than  any  the  world  had  ever  seen, 
covering  about  thirteen  millions  of  square  miles,  if 
Egypt  and  the  Soudan  were  included,  with  a  total 
population  of  over  four  hundred  and  twenty  millions. 
This  Empire  is  scattered  everywhere,  in  Asia,  Africa, 
Australasia,  the  two  Americas,  and  the  islands  of  the 
seven  seas.  The  population  includes  a  motley  host 
of  peoples.  Only  fifty-four  million  are  English-speak- 
ing, and  of  these  about  forty-two  million  live  in  Great 
Britain.  Most  of  the  colonies  are  self-supporting. 
They  illustrate  every  form  of  government,  military, 
autocratic,  representative,  democratic.  The  sea  alone 
binds  the  Empire.  England's  throne  is  on  the  moun- 
tain wave  in  a  literal  as  well  as  in  a  metaphorical 


THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE  189 

sense.  Dominance  of  the  oceans  is  essential  that  she 
may  keep  open  her  communications  with  her  far- 
flung  colonies.  It  is  no  accident  that  England  is 
the  greatest  sea-power  of  the  world,  and  intends  to 
remain  such.  She  regards  this  as  the  very  vital  prin- 
ciple of  her  imperial  existence. 

A  noteworthy  feature  of  the  British  Empire  as 
already  sufficiently  indicated,  is  the  practically 'un- 
hmited  self-government  enjoyed  by  several  of  the  col- 
onies, those  in  which  the  EngHsh  stock  predominates, 
Canada,  Australia,  South  Africa,  New  Zealand.  This 
policy  is  in  contrast  to  that  pursued  by  the  French 
and  German  governments,  which  rule  their  colonies 
directly  from  Paris  and  Berlin.  But  this  system  does 
not  apply  to  the  greatest  of  them  all,  India,  nor  to  a 
multitude  of  smaller  possessions. 

A  question  much  and  earnestly  discussed  during  the 
last  twenty-five  years  is  that  of  Imperial  Federation. 
May  not  some  machinery  be  developed,  some  method 
be   found,   whereby   the   vast   empire   may   be   more 
closely  consolidated,  and  for  certain  purposes  act  as  a 
single  state?     If  so,  its  power  will  be  greatly  aug- 
mented, and  the  world  will  witness  the  most  stupen- 
dous achievement  in  the  art  of  government  recorded 
in  its  history.    The  creation  of  such  a  Greater  Britain 
has  seized,  in  recent  years,  the  imagination  of  many 
thoughtful  statesmen.    That  the  World  War  will  have 
contributed  to  the  solution  of  this  problem  seems  a 
reasonable   expectation.     For  that  war  showed   the 
existence  of  an   intense  imperial   patriotism   among 
Canadians,  Australians,  New  Zealanders,  South  Afri- 
cans, and  apparently  even  Indians,  all  rushing  instinc- 


I90  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

tively  to  support  the  mother  country  in  her  hour 
of  need,  all  evidently  willing  to  give  the  last  full 
measure  of  devotion  to  a  cause  which  they  regarded 
as  common  to  them  all.  So  powerful  a  spirit  may 
well  find  a  way  of  embodying  and  crystallizing  it- 
self in  permanent  political  institutions.  The  sense  of 
unity,  indisputably  revealed,  may  well  be  the  har- 
binger of  a  coming  organization  adapted  to  preserve 
and  foster  that  sense  and  to  develop  it  more  richly 
still. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  PARTITION  OF  AFRICA 

Lying  almost  within  sight  of  Europe  and  forming  the 
southern  boundary  of  her  great  inland  sea  is  the  im- 
mense continent,  three  times  the  size  of  Europe, 
whose  real  nature  was  revealed  only  in  the  last  quar- 
ter of  the  nineteenth  century.  In  some  respects  the 
seat  of  very  ancient  history,  in  most  its  history  is 
just  beginning.  In  Egypt  a  rich  and  advanced  civili- 
zation appeared  in  very  early  times  along  the  lower 
valley  of  the  Nile.  Yet  only  after  thousands  of  years 
and  only  in  our  own  day  have  the  sources  and  the 
upper  course  of  that  famous  river  been  discovered. 
Along  the  northern  coasts  arose  the  civilization  and 
state  of  Carthage,  rich,  mysterious,  and  redoubtable, 
for  a  while  the  powerful  rival  of  Rome,  succumbing 
to  the  latter  only  after  severe  and  memorable  strug- 
glesv  The  ancient  world  knew,  therefore,  the  north- 
ern shores  of  Africa.  The  rest  was  practically  un- 
known. In  the  fifteenth  century  came  the  great  series 
of  geographical  discoveries,  which  immensely  widened 
the  known  boundaries  of  the  world.  Among  other 
things,  they  revealed  the  hitherto  unknown  outline 
and  magnitude  of  the  continent.  But  its  great  inner 
mass  remained  as  before,  unexplored,  and  so  it  re- 
mained until  well  into  the  nineteenth  century. 

191 


192  FIFTY,  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

In  1815  the  situation  was  as  follows:  the  Turkish 
Empire  extended  along  the  whole  northern  coast  to 
Morocco;  that  is,  the  Sultan  was  nominally  sovereign 
of  Egypt,  Tripoli,  Tunis,  and  Algeria.  Morocco  was 
independent  under  its  own  sultan.  Along  the  west- 
ern coasts  were  scattered  settlements,  or  rather  sta- 
tions, of  England,  France,  Denmark,  Holland,  Spain, 
and  Portugal.  Portugal  had  certain  claims  on  the 
eastern  coast,  opposite  Madagascar.  England  had 
just  acquired  the  Dutch  Cape  Colony,  whence,  as 
we  have  seen,  her  expansion  into  a  great  South  Afri- 
can power  has  proceeded.  The  interior  of  the  con- 
tinent was  unknown,  and  was  of  interest  only  to 
geographers. 

For  sixty  years  after  181 5,  progress  in  the  appro- 
priation of  Africa  by  Europe  was  slow.  The  most  im- 
portant annexation  was  that  of  Algeria  by  France  be- 
tween 1830  and  1847.  In  the  south,  England  was 
spreading  out,  and  the  Boers  were  founding  their 
two  republics. 

European  annexation  waited  upon  exploration. 
Africa  was  the  "  Dark  Continent,"  and  until  the  dark- 
ness was  lifted  it  was  not  coveted.  About  the  mid- 
dle of  the  century  the  darkness  began  to  disappear. 
Explorers  penetrated  farther  and  farther  into  the  in- 
terior, traversing  the  continent  in  various  directions, 
opening  a  chapter  of  geographical  discovery  of  ab- 
sorbing interest.  It  is  impossible  within  our  Hmits 
to  do  more  than  allude  to  the  wonderful  work  par- 
ticipated in  by  many  intrepid  explorers,  EngHshmen, 
Frenchmen,  Portuguese,  Dutchmen,  Germans,  and 
Belgians.    A  few  incidents  only  can  be  mentioned. 


THE  PARTITION  OF  AFRICA  193 

It  was  natural  that  Europeans  should  be  curious 
about  the  sources  of  the  Nile,  a  river  famous  since 
the  dawn  of  history,  but  whose  source  remained  en- 
veloped in  obscurity.  In  1858  one  source  was  found 
by  Speke,  an  English  explorer,  to  consist  of  a  great 
lake  south  of  the  equator,  to  which  the  name  Vic- 
toria Nyanza  was  given.  Six  years  later  another  Eng- 
lishman, Sir  Samuel  Baker,  discovered  another  lake, 
also  a  source,  and  named  it  Albert  Nyanza. 

Two  names  particularly  stand  out  in  this  record  of 
African  exploration,  Livingstone  and  Stanley.  David 
Livingstone,  a  Scotch  missionary  and  traveler,  began 
his  African  career  in  1840,  and  continued  it  until  his 
death,  in  1873.  He  traced  the  course  of  the  Zam- 
besi River,  of  the  upper  Congo,  and  the  region  round 
about  Lakes  Tanganyika  and  Nyassa.  He  crossed 
Africa  from  sea  to  sea.  He  opened  up  a  new  coun- 
try to  the  world.  His  explorations  caught  the  atten- 
tion of  Europe,  and  when,  on  one  of  his  journeys, 
Europe  thought  that  he  was  lost  or  dead,  and  an 
expedition  was  sent  out  to  find  him,  that  expedition 
riveted  the  attention  of  Europe  as  no  other  in  Afri- 
can history  had  done.  It  was  under  the  direction  of 
Henry  M.  Stanley,  sent  out  by  the  New  York  Herald. 
Stanley's  story  of  how  he  found  Livingstone  was  read 
with  the  greatest  interest  in  Europe,  and  heightened 
the  desire,  already  widespread,  for  more  knowledge 
about  the  great  continent.  Livingstone,  whose  name 
is  the  most  important  in  the  history  of  African  ex- 
ploration, died  in  1873.  His  body  was  borne  with 
all  honor  to  England  and  given  the  burial  of  a  na- 
tional hero  in  Westminster  Abbey. 


194  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

By  this  time  not  only  was  the  scientific  curiosity 
of  Europe  thoroughly  aroused,  but  missionary  zeal 
saw  a  new  field  for  activity.  Thus  Stanley's  journey 
across  Africa,  from  1874  to  1878,  was  followed  in 
Europe  with  an  attention  unparalleled  in  the  history 
of  modern  explorations.  Stanley  explored  the  equa- 
torial lake  region,  making  important  additions  to 
knowledge.  His  great  work  was,  however,  his  ex- 
ploration of  the  Congo  River  system.  Little  had 
been  known  of  this  river  save  its  lower  course  as 
it  approached  the  sea.  Stanley  proved  that  it  was 
one  of  the  largest  rivers  in  the  world,  that  its  length 
was  more  than  three  thousand  miles,  that  it  was  fed 
by  an  enormous  number  of  tributaries,  that  it  drained 
an  area  of  over  1,300,000  square  miles,  that  in  the 
volume  of  its  waters  it  was  only  exceeded  by  the 
Amazon. 

Thus,  in  1880,  the  scientific  enthusiasm  and  curi- 
osity, the  missionary  and  philanthropic  zeal  of  Euro- 
peans, the  hatred  of  slave  hunters  who  plied  their 
trade  in  the  interior,  had  solved  the  great  mystery 
of  Africa.  The  map  showed  rivers  and  lakes  where 
previously  all  had  been  blank. 

Upon  discovery  quickly  followed  appropriation. 
France  entered  upon  her  protectorate  of  Tunis  in 

1881,  England  upon  her  "  occupation  "  of  Egypt  in 

1882.  This  was  a  signal  for  a  general  scramble.  A 
feverish  period  of  partition  succeeded  the  long,  slow 
one  of  discovery.  European  powers  swept  down  upon 
this  continent  lying  at  their  very  door,  hitherto  ne- 
glected and  despised,  and  carved  it  up  among  them- 
selves.   This  they  did  without  recourse  to  war  by  a 


THE  PARTITION  OF  AFRICA  195 

series  of  treaties  among  themselves,  defining  the 
boundaries  of  their  claims.  Africa  became  an  annex 
of  Europe.  Out  of  this  rush  for  territories  the  great 
powers,  England,  France,  and  Germany,  naturally 
emerged  with  the  largest  acquisitions,  but  Portugal 
and  Italy  each  secured  a  share.  The  situation  and 
relative  extent  of  these  may  best  be  appreciated  by 
an  examination  of  the  map.  Most  of  the  treaties 
by  which  this  division  was  affected  were  made  be- 
tween 1884  and  1890. 

One  feature  of  this  appropriation  of  Africa  by 
Europe  was  the  foundation  of  the  Congo  Free  State. 
This  was  the  work  of  the  second  King  of  Belgium, 
Leopold  II,  a  man  who  was  greatly  interested  in  the 
exploration  of  that  continent.  After  the  discoveries 
of  Livingstone,  and  the  early  ones  of  Stanley,  Leopold 
called  a  conference  of  the  powers  in  1876.  As  a  re- 
sult of  its  deliberations  an  International  African  Asso- 
ciation was  established,  which  was  to  have  its  seat 
in  Brussels,  and  whose  aim  was  to  be  the  explora- 
tion and  civilization  of  central  Africa.  Each  nation 
wishing  to  cooperate  was  to  collect  funds  for  the 
common  object. 

In  1879  Stanley  was  sent  out  to  carry  on  the  work 
he  had  already  begun.  Hitherto  an  explorer,  he  now 
became,  in  addition,  an  organizer  and  state  builder. 

During  the  next  four  or  five  years,  1879-84,  he 
made  hundreds  of  treaties  with  native  chiefs  and 
founded  many  stations  in  the  Congo  basin.  Nomi- 
nally an  emissary  of  an  international  association,  his 
expenses  were  largely  borne  by  King  Leopold  II. 

Portugal  now  put  forth  extensive  claims  to  much 


196  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  this  Congo  region  on  the  ground  of  previous  dis- 
covery. To  adjust  these  claims  and  other  matters, 
a  general  conference  w^as  held  in  Berlin,  in  1884-5,  at- 
tended by  all  the  states  of  Europe,  with  the  exception 
of  Sv^itzerland,  and  also  by  the  United  States.  The 
conference  recognized  the  existence  as  an  independ- 
ent power  of  the  Congo  Free  State,  with  an  exten- 
sive area,  most  of  the  Congo  basin.  It  was  evidently 
its  understanding  that  this  was  to  be  a  neutral  and 
international  state.  Trade  in  it  was  to  be  open  to  all 
nations  on  equal  terms,  the  rivers  were  to  be  free 
to  all,  and  only  such  dues  were  to  be  levied  as  should 
be  required  to  provide  for  the  necessities  of  com- 
merce. No  trade  monopolies  were  to  be  granted. 
The  conference,  however,  provided  no  machinery  for 
the  enforcement  of  its  decrees.  Those  decrees  have 
remained  unfulfilled.  The  state  quickly  ceased  to  be 
international,  monopolies  have  been  granted,  trade 
in  the  Congo  has  not  been  free  to  all. 

The  new  state  became  practically  Belgian  because 
the  King  of  Belgium  was  the  only  one  to  show  much 
practical  interest  in  the  project.  In  1885,  Leopold  II 
assumed  the  position  of  sovereign,  declaring  that  the 
connection  of  the  Congo  Free  State  and  Belgium 
should  be  merely  personal,  he  being  the  ruler  of  both. 
This  and  later  changes  in  the  status  of  the  Congo 
have  either  been  formally  recognized  or  acquiesced 
in  by  the  powers.  This  international  state  finally,  in 
1908,  was  converted  outright  into  a  Belgian  colony, 
subject,  not  to  the  personal  rule  of  the  King,  but  to 
Parliament. 


THE  PARTITION  OF  AFRICA  197 

Egypt 

Egypt,  a  seat  of  ancient  civilization,  was  conquered 
by  the  Turks  and  became  a  part  of  the  Turkish  Em- 
pire in  1517.  It  remained  nominally  such  down  to 
1915,  when  Great  Britain  declared  it  annexed  to  the 
British  Empire  as  a  protected  state.  During  all  that 
time  its  supreme  ruler  was  the  Sultan,  who  resided 
in  Constantinople.  But  a  series  of  remarkable  events 
in  the  nineteenth  century  resulted  in  giving  it  a  most 
singular  and  complicated  position.  To  put  down  cer- 
tain opponents  of  the  Sultan  an  Albanian  warrior, 
Mehemet  Ali,  was  sent  out  early  in  the  nineteenth 
century.  Appointed  by  the  Sultan  Governor  of  Egypt 
in  1806,  he  had,  by  181 1,  made  himself  absolute  mas- 
ter of  the  country.  He  had  succeeded  only  too  well. 
Originally  merely  the  representative  of  the  Sultan, 
he  had  become  the  real  ruler  of  the  land.  His  ambi- 
tions grew  with  his  successes,  and  he  was  able  to 
gain  the  important  concession  that  the  right  to  rule 
as  viceroy  in  Egypt  should  be  hereditary  in  his  fam- 
ily. The  title  was  later  changed  to  that  of  Khedive. 
Thus  was  founded  an  Egyptian  dynasty,  subject  to 
the  dynasty  of  Constantinople. 

,  The  fifth  ruler  of  this  family  was  Ismail  (1863-79). 
It  was  under  him  that  the  Suez  Canal  was  completed, 
a  great  undertaking  carried  through  by  a  French 
engineer,  Ferdinand  de  Lesseps,  the  money  coming 
largely  from  European  investors.  This  Khedive 
plunged  into  the  most  reckless  extravagance.  As  a 
result   the   Egyptian   debt   rose   with    extraordinary 


198  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

rapidity  from  three  million  pounds  in  1863  to  eighty- 
nine  million  in  1876. 

The  Khedive,  needing  money,  sold,  in  1875,  ^^s 
shares  in  the  Suez  Canal  Company  to  Great  Britain 
for  about  four  million  pounds,  to  the  great  irritation 
of  the  French.  This  was  a  mere  temporary  relief 
to  the  Khedive's  finances,  but  was  an  important  ad- 
vantage to  England,  as  the  canal  was  destined  in- 
evitably to  be  the  favorite  route  to  India. 

This  extraordinary  increase  of  the  Egyptian  debt 
is  the  key  to  the  whole  later  history  of  that  country. 
The  money  had  been  borrowed  abroad,   mainly  in 
England   and   France.      Fearing   the   bankruptcy   of 
Egypt,  the  governments  of  the  two  countries  inter- 
vened in  the  interest  of  their  investors,  and  succeeded 
in  imposing  their  control  over  a  large  part  of  the 
financial  administration.     This  was  the  famous  Dual 
Control,  which  lasted  from  1879  to  1883.     The  Khe- 
dive, Ismail,  resented  this  tutelage,  was  consequently 
forced  to  abdicate,   and  was   succeeded  by  his  son 
Tewfik,  who  ruled  from  1879  to  1892.    The  new  Khe- 
dive did  not  struggle  against  the  Dual  Control,  but 
certain  elements  of  the  population  did.     The  bitter 
hatred  inspired  by  this  intervention  of  the  foreign- 
ers flared  up  in  a  native  movement,  which  had  as 
its  war  cry,  "  Egypt  for  the  Egyptians,"  and  as  its 
leader,  Arabi  Pasha,  an  officer  in  the  army.     Before 
this  movement  of  his  subjects  the  Khedive  was  pow- 
erless.   It  was  evident  that  the  foreign  control,  estab- 
lished in  the  interest  of  foreign  bond-holders,  could 
only  be  perpetuated  by  the  suppression  of  Arabi  and 
his  fellow-malcontents,  and  that  the  suppression  could 


THE  PARTITION  OF  AFRICA  199 

be  accomplished  only  by  the  foreigners  themselves. 
Thus  financial  intervention  led  directly  to  miHtary 
intervention.  England  sought  the  cooperation  of 
France,  but  France  declined.  She  then  proceeded 
alone,  defeated  Arabi  in  September,  1882,  and  crushed 
the  rebellion. 

The  English  had  intervened  nominally  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  Khedive's  authority  against  his  rebel,  Arabi, 
though  they  had  not  been  asked  so  to  intervene  either 
by  the  Khedive  himself  or  by  the  Sultan  of  Turkey, 
legal  sovereign  of  Egypt,  or  by  the  powers  of  Europe! 
Having  suppressed  the  insurrection,  what  would  they 
do?     Would  they  withdraw  their  army?     The  ques- 
tion was  a  difficult  one.     To  withdraw  was  to  leave 
Egypt  a  prey  to  anarchy;  to  remain  was  certainly 
to  offend  the  European  powers,  which  would  look 
upon  this  as  a  piece  of  British  aggression.     Particu- 
larly would  such  action  be  resented  by  France.     Con- 
sequently England  did  not  annex  Egypt,     She  recog- 
nized the  Khedive  as  still  the  ruler,  Egypt  as  still 
technically  a  part  of  Turkey.     But  she  insisted  on 
holding  the  position   of  "adviser"   to   the   Khedive 
and  also  insisted  that  her  "  advice  "  in  the  govern- 
ment of  Egypt  be  followed.    From  1883  to  191 5  such 
was  the  situation.    A  British  force  remained  in  Egypt, 
the  "  occupation,"  as  it  was  called,  continued,  advice 
was  compulsory.     England  was  ruler  in  fact,  not  in 
law.     The  Dual  Control  ended  in  1883,  and  England 
began  in  earnest  a  work  of  reconstruction  and  reform 
which   was   carried   forward   under   the   guidance   of 
Lord   Cromer,   who  was   British   Consul-General   in 
Egypt  until  1907. 


200  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

In  intervening  in  Egypt  in  1882,  England  became 
immediately  involved  in  a  further  enterprise  which 
brought  disaster  and  humiliation,  Egypt  possessed  a 
dependency  in  the  south,  the  Soudan,  a  vast  region 
comprising  chiefly  the  basin  of  the  Upper  Nile,  a 
poorly  organized  territory  with  a  varied,  semi-civil- 
ized, nomadic  population,  and  a  capital  at  Khartoum. 
This  province,  long  oppressed  by  Egypt,  was  in  full 
process  of  revolt.  It  found  a  chief  in  a  man  called  the 
Mahdi,  or  leader,  who  succeeded  in  arousing  the 
fierce  religious  fanaticism  of  the  Soudanese  by  claim- 
ing to  be  a  kind  of  Prophet  or  Messiah.  Winning 
successes  over  the  Egyptian  troops,  he  proclaimed  a 
religious  war,  the  people  of  the  whole  Soudan  rallied 
about  him,  and  the  result  was  that  the  troops  were 
driven  into  their  fortresses  and  there  besieged.  Would 
England  recognize  any  obligation  to  preserve  the 
Soudan  for  Egypt?  Gladstone,  then  prime  minister, 
determined  to  abandon  the  Soudan.  But  even  this 
was  a  matter  of  difficulty.  It  involved  at  least  the 
rescue  of  the  imprisoned  garrisons.  The  ministry 
was  unwilling  to  send  a  military  expedition.  It  finally 
decided  to  send  out  General  Gordon,  a  man  who  had 
shown  a  remarkable  power  in  influencing  half-civil- 
ized races.  It  was  understood  that  there  was  to  be 
no  expedition.  It  was  apparently  supposed  that  some- 
how Gordon,  without  military  aid,  could  accomplish 
the  safe  withdrawal  of  the  garrisons.  He  reached 
Khartoum,  but  found  the  danger  far  more  serious 
than  had  been  supposed,  the  rebellion  far  more  men- 
acing. He  found  himself  shortly  shut  up  in  Khar- 
toum, surrounded  by  frenzied  and  confident  Mahdists. 


THE  PARTITION  OF  AFRICA  201 

At  once  there  arose  in  England  a  cry  for  the  relief 
of  Gordon,  a  man  whose  personality,  marked  by 
heroic,  eccentric,  magnetic  qualities,  bafflingly  con- 
tradictory, had  seized  in  a  remarkable  degree  the  in- 
terest, enthusiasm,  and  imagination  of  the  English 
people.  But  the  Government  was  dilatory.  Weeks, 
and  even  months,  went  by.  Finally,  an  expedition 
was  sent  out  in  September,  1884.  Pushing  forward 
rapidly,  against  great  difHculties,  it  reached  Khar- 
toum January  28,  1885,  only  to  find  the  flag  of  the 
Mahdi  floating  over  it.  Only  two  days  before  the 
place  had  been  stormed  and  Gordon  and  eleven  thou- 
sand of  his  men  massacred. 

For  a  decade  after  this  the  Soudan  was  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  dervishes,  completely  abandoned.  But 
finally  England  resolved  to  recover  this  territory, 
which  she  did  by  the  battle  of  Omdurman,  in  which 
General  Kitchener  completely  annihilated  the  power 
of  the  dervishes,  September  2,  1898. 

Egypt  and  the  Soudan  were  formally  declared  an- 
nexed to  the  British  Empire  in  1915  as  an  incident 
of  the  European  War.  The  Khedive  was  deposed 
and  a  new  Khedive  was  put  in  his  place,  and  Great 
Britain  prepared  to  rule  Egypt  as  she  rules  many  of 
the  states  of  India,  preserving  the  formality  of  a 
native  prince  as  sovereign.  Egypt  was  declared  a 
"Protected  State." 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE 

There  were  in  Europe  in  1914  about  twenty  differ- 
ent states.  It  is  difficult  to  give  the  precise  number, 
since  the  exact  status  of  one  or  two  of  them  was 
somewhat  doubtful.  Some  of  these  states  were  ex- 
tremely small.  There  were  two  petty  republics;  one, 
Andorra,  located  in  the  Pyrenees,  which  consisted 
chiefly  of  a  valley  surrounded  by  high  mountain  peaks 
and  which  had  a  population  of  about  five  thousand. 
Its  maximum  length  is  seventeen  miles,  its  width 
eighteen.  Andorra  is  under  the  suzerainty  of  France 
and  of  the  Spanish  Bishop  of  Urgel,  paying  960 
francs  a  year  to  the  former,  460  to  the  latter.  The 
other  of  these  republics  is  San  Marino,  which  claims 
to  be  the  oldest  state  in  Europe,  and  is  located 
on  a  spur  of  the  Apennines,  entirely  surrounded  by 
Italy,  and  which  has  a  population  of  about  twelve 
thousand.  San  Marino  is  the  sole  survivor  of  those 
numerous  city-republics  which  abounded  in  Italy  dur- 
ing the  Middle  Ages.  Then  there  is  also  the  little 
principality  of  Liechtenstein,  lying  between  Switzer- 
land and  Austria,  and  having  a  population  of  about 
eleven  thousand.  There  was  also  in  1914  the  princi- 
pality of  Albania,  a  state  which  was  created  by  inter- 
national action  in  1912  and  1913,  and  which  collapsed 

202 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  203 

in  the  following  year  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war 
But  whatever  the  exact  status  of  these  petty  states 
inay  be,  they  may  be  ignored  in  our  survey,  as,  with 
the  exception  of  Albania,  they  have  not  counted  in 
the  general  politics  of  Europe. 

There  were  in   1914  three  other  states  which  oc- 
cupied a  pecuUar  position.     They  were  the  so-called 
neutralized  states  Belgium,  Luxemburg,  and  Switzer- 
land.   A  neutralized  state  is  one  whose  independence 
and    integrity    are    guaranteed    forever    by    interna- 
tional agreement.     Such  states  may  generally  main- 
tain armies,  but  only  for  defense.     They  may  never 
make  aggressive  war;  nor  may  they  make  treaties  or 
alliances  with  other  states  that  may  lead  them  into 
war     The  reason  why  a  state  may  desire  to  become 
neutralized  is  that  it  is  weak,  that  its  independence 
.s  guaranteed,  that  it  has  no  desire  or  ability  to  par- 
ticipate in  international  affairs,  in   the  usual   strug- 
gles or  competitions  of  states.     The  reasons  why  the 
great  powers  have  consented   to   the  neutralization 
of  such  states  have  differed  in  different  cases.     But 

f  .u   ^^  i""'""  ^^'  ''""  connected  with  the  theory 
of  the  balance  of  power,  the  desire  to  keep  them  as 
buffers  between  two  or  more  neighboring  large  states. 
Switzerland  was  neutralized  in  1815  at  the  close  of 
the   Napoleonic  Wars,  and  its  neutrality  has  never 
been    mfrmged.      Belgium    was   neutralized   in    i8« 
when  It  separated  from  Holland  and  became  an  in- 
dependent state.    Luxemburg  was  neutralized  in  1867 
when  It  was  freed  from  its  previously  existing  con- 
nections  with    Germany,    as    a    result    of  the    reor- 
ganization of  Germany  and  the  establishment  of  the 


204  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

North  German  Confederation,  after  the  Austro-Prus- 
sian  War  of  1866  and  the  famous  battle  of  Koniggratz 
or  Sadowa. 

A  neutralized  state  may,  as  has  been  said,  have  an 
army  and  a  navy  and  may  build  fortresses,  as  long  as 
this  is  done  for  purposes  of  self-defense  only,  for  a 
neutralized  state  is  obliged  to  defend  its  neutrality,  if  at- 
tacked, to  the  full  extent  of  its  powers.  Thus,  in  1914, 
Belgium  and  Switzerland  had  armies  and  universal 
military  service.  Luxemburg,  however,  was  an  anom- 
aly, as  the  treaty  of  1867,  neutralizing  her,  provided 
explicitly  that  she  should  not  be  allowed  to  keep  any 
armed  force,  with  the  exception  of  a  police  for  the 
maintenance  of  public  security  and  order.  Under  the 
circumstances,  Luxemburg  could  do  nothing  for  the 
defense  of  her  neutrality  when  invaded  in  August, 
1914.  Belgium,  however,  could  and  did  make  a  spir- 
ited, though  ineffectual,  resistance  to  the  invader. 
Switzerland  was  not  attacked,  but  nevertheless  she 
mobilized  her  army  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  and 
stood  ready  to  defend  herself,  if  necessary.  Whether 
Belgium  and  Luxemburg,  whose  guaranteed  rights 
were  so  poor  a  protection  in  1914,  will  be  neutral- 
ized again  remains,  of  course,  to  be  seen. 

It  cannot  yet  be  said  with  confidence  whether  neu- 
tralization as  an  international  device  can  stand  the 
test  of  history,  or  not.  Belgium's  neutrality  was  ob- 
served by  its  guarantors  for  eighty-three  years  and 
then  ruthlessly  broken  by  one  of  them ;  Luxemburg's 
for  forty-seven,  then  broken  by  the  same  power — 
Germany.  Switzerland,  as  stated,  is  the  only  one  of 
these  specially  "  protected  "  states  which  has  passed 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  205 

unscathed  by  foreign  war,  and  respected  by  its  pro- 
tectors for  a  full  century  and  more. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  general  European  poli- 
tics, the  significance  of  Belgium  and  of  her  northern 
neighbor,  Holland,  from  which  she  separated  in  1830, 
has  lain  in  the  fact  that  they  have  been  coveted  by 
those    Germans    who   have    desired    to   increase    the 
boundaries  of  the   German   Empire,  and  who  have, 
to  that  end,  advocated  the  absorption  of  certain  ter- 
ritories  lying   beyond    the    boundaries    of    Germany. 
Belgium  and  Holland  have  been  coveted  by  the  Pan- 
Germans  because  of  their  riches,  industrial  and  agri- 
cultural, because  of  their  coastline,  abounding  in  ex- 
cellent  harbors   on    the  Atlantic,   fronting   England, 
and  also  because  of  their  colonies,  Belgium  possessing 
a  vast  African  domain,  now  called  the  Congo  Colony, 
rich  in  tropical  products,  and  Holland  possessing  in- 
valuable  tropical   islands   in   the    East   Indies,   Java, 
Sumatra,  Borneo,  and  Celebes.     The  Belgian  colony 
has  an  area  of  over  900,000  square  miles,  an  area  about 
a  fourth  as  large  as  that  of  the  United  States,  in- 
cluding Alaska,  with  a  population  of  perhaps  ten  mil- 
lion.    The  colonies  of  Holland  or  the  Netherlands, 
as  that  state  is  officially  called,  have  an  area  of  about 
800,000  square   miles   and   a   population   of  approxi- 
mately    thirty-eight     millions.       The     Pan-Germans 
looked  with   greedy   eyes   upon   these   spacious   and 
inviting  territories,  belonging  to  countries  which,  in 
a  mihtary  sense,  were  conveniently  weak. 


2o6  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Switzerland 

The  chief  significance  of  Switzerland  in  the  general 
history  of  modern  Europe  and  the  world  of  to-day 
lies,  not  in  great  events,  nor  in  foreign  policy,  for 
she  has  constantly  preserved  a  strict  neutrality,  but 
in  the  steady  and  thoroughgoing  evolution  of  cer- 
tain political  forms  and  devices  which  have  been  in- 
creasingly studied  abroad  and  which  may  ultimately 
prove  of  value  to  all  self-governing  countries.  She 
has  been  a  land  of  interesting  and  suggestive  politi- 
cal experimentation. 

Switzerland  is  a  federal  state.  Each  canton,  and 
there  are  twenty-five  of  them,  has  its  own  govern- 
ment, with  its  own  definite  jurisdiction  and  powers. 
But  all  are  united  for  certain  national  purposes.  The 
national  government  resembles,  in  some  respects, 
that  of  the  United  States.  There  is  a  federal  legis- 
lature, consisting  of  two  houses;  the  National  Coun- 
cil, elected  directly  by  the  people,  one  member  for 
every  20,000  inhabitants,  and  the  Council  of  States, 
composed  of  two  members  of  each  canton.  In  the 
former,  population  counts;  in  the  latter,  equality  of 
the  cantons  is  preserved.  The  two  bodies  sitting  to- 
gether choose  the  Federal  Tribunal,  and  also  a  com- 
mittee of  seven,  the  Federal  Council,  to  serve  as  the 
executive.  From  this  committee  of  seven  they  elect 
each  year  one  who  acts  as  its  chairman  and  whose 
title  is  "  President  of  the  Swiss  Confederation,"  but 
whose  power  is  no  greater  than  that  of  any  of  the 
other  members. 

But  more  important  than  the  organization  of  the 


1  THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  207 

federal  government  are  certain  processes  of  law-mak- 
ing which  have  been  developed  in  Switzerland  and 
which  are  the  most  democratic  in  character  known 
to  the  world.  The  achievement  in  this  direction  has 
been  so  remarkable,  the  process  so  uninterrupted,  that 
it  merits   description. 

In  all  countries  calling  themselves  democratic,  the 
political  machinery  is  representative,  not  direct,  that 
is,  the  voters  do  not  make  the  laws  themselves,  but 
merely  at  certain  periods  choose  people,  their  repre- 
sentatives, who  make  them.  These  laws  are  not  rati- 
fied or  rejected  by  the  voters;  they  never  come  before 
the  voters  directly.  But  the  Swiss  have  sought,  and 
with  great  success,  to  render  the  voters  law-makers 
themselves,  and  not  the  mere  choosers  of  law-makers, 
to  apply  the  power  of  the  democracy  to  the  national 
life  at  every  point,  and  constantly.  They  have  done 
this  in  various  ways.  Their  methods  have  been  first 
worked  out  in  the  cantons,  and  later  in  the  confed- 
eration. 

Some  of  the  smaller  cantons  have  from  time  im- 
memorial been  pure  democracies.  The  voters  have 
met  together  at  stated  times,  usually  in  the  open  air, 
have  elected  their  officials,  and  by  a  show  of  hands 
have  voted  the  laws.  There  are  six  such  cantons 
to-day.  Such  direct  government  is  possible,  because 
these  cantons  are  small  both  in  area  and  population. 
They  are  so  small  that  no  voter  has  more  than  fifteen 
miles  to  go  to  the  voting  place,  and  most  have  a  much 
shorter  distance. 

But  in  the  other  cantons  this  method  does  not  pre- 
vail.   In  them  the  people  elect  representative  assem- 


2o8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

blies,  as  in  England  and  the  United  States,  but  they 
exercise  a  control  over  them  not  exercised  in  those 
countries,  a  control  which  renders  self-government 
almost  as  complete  as  in  the  six  cantons  described 
above.  They  do  this  by  the  so-called  referendum 
and  initiative.  In  the  cantons  where  these  processes 
are  in  vogue  the  people  do  not,  as  in  the  Landes- 
gemeinde  cantons,  come  together  in  mass  meeting 
and  enact  their  own  laws.  They  elect,  as  in  other 
countries,  their  own  legislature,  which  enacts  the  laws. 
The  government  is  representative,  not  democratic. 
But  the  action  of  the  legislature  is  not  final,  only  to 
be  altered,  if  altered  at  all,  by  a  succeeding  legisla- 
ture. Laws  passed  by  the  cantonal  legislature  may 
or  must  be  referred  to  the  people  (referendum),  who 
then  have  the  right  to  reject  or  accept  them,  who,  in 
other  words,  become  the  law-makers,  their  legislature 
being  simply  a  kind  of  committee  to  help  them  by 
suggesting  measures  and  by  drafting  them. 

The  initiative,  on  the  other  hand,  enables  a  certain 
number  of  voters  to  propose  a  law  or  a  principle  of 
legislation  and  to  require  that  the  legislature  submit 
the  proposal  to  the  people,  even  though  it  is  itself 
opposed  to  it.  If  ratified  the  proposal  becomes  law. 
The  initiative  thus  reverses  the  order  of  the  process. 
The  impulse  to  the  making  of  a  new  law  comes  from 
the  people,  not  from  the  legislature.  The  referendum 
is  negative  and  preventive.  It  is  the  veto  power  given 
to  the  people.  The  initiative  is  positive,  originative, 
constructive.  By  these  two  processes  a  democracy 
makes  whatever  laws  it  pleases.  The  one  is  the  com- 
plement of  the  other.     They  do  not  abolish  legisla- 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  209 

tures,  but  they  give  the  people  control  whenever  a 
sufficient  number  wish  to  exercise  it.  The  constitu- 
tion of  the  canton  of  Zurich  expresses  the  relation 
as  follows :  "  The  people  exercise  the  law-making 
power  with  the  assistance  of  the  state  legislature." 
The  legislature  is  not  the  final  law-making  body. 
The  voters  are  the  supreme  legislators.  These  two 
devices,  the  referendum  and  the  initiative,  are  in- 
tended to  establish,  and  do  establish,  government  of 
the  people,  and  by  the  people.  They  are  of  great 
interest  to  ail  who  wish  to  make  the  practice  of 
democracy  correspond  to  the  theory.  By  them  Swit- 
zerland has  more  nearly  approached  democracy  than 
has  any  other  country. 

Switzerland  has  made  great  progress  in  education 
and  in  industry.  The  population  has  increased  over 
a  million  since  1850  and  now  numbers  about  three 
and  a  half  millions.  The  population  is  not  homo- 
geneous in  race  or  language.  About  71  per  cent 
speak  German,  21  per  cent  French,  5  per  cent  Ital- 
ian, and  a  small  fraction  speak  a  peculiar  Romance 
language  called  Roumansch.  But  language  is  not  a 
divisive  force,  as  it  is  elsewhere,  as  it  is,  for  example, 
in  Austria-Hungary  and  in  the  Bailkan  peninsula, 
probably  because  no  political  advantages  or  disad- 
vantages are  connected  with  it. 

Denmark 

Three  other  small  nations  of  Europe  are  the  Scan- 
dinavian states,  Denmark,  Norway  and  Sweden.  Of 
these  the  one  that  has  been  most  intimately  and  also 


210  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

most  disastrously  affected  by  the  general  course  of 
events  in  Europe  is  Denmark.  Denmark  was  dis- 
membered twice  during  the  nineteenth  century.  Her 
importance,  her  resources  were  therefore  seriously 
reduced.  The  first  dismemberment  occurred  at  the 
time  of  the  fall  of  Napoleon  I.  During  the  later  wars 
of  Napoleon,  Denmark  had  been  his  ally,  remaining 
loyal  to  the  end,  while  other  allies  had  taken  favora- 
ble occasion  to  desert  him.  For  this  conduct  the  con- 
querors of  Napoleon  punished  her  severely  by  forc- 
ing her,  by  the  Treaty  of  Kiel,  January,  1814,  to  cede 
Norway  to  Sweden,  which  had  sided  with  the  con- 
querors. The  condition  of  the  Danish  kingdom  was, 
therefore,  deplorable,  indeed.  By  the  loss  of  Nor- 
way her  population  was  reduced  one-third.  Her  trade 
was  ruined,  and  her  finances  were  in  the  greatest 
disorder. 

The  second  dismemberment  occurred  fifty  years 
later  when  Prussia  and  Austria  declared  war  upon 
her  in  1864,  defeated  her,  and  seized  the  duchies  of 
Schleswig  and  Holstein.  Again  she  suffered  griev- 
ously at  the  hands  of  the  great  military  powers.  Her 
territory  was  reduced  by  a  third,  her  population  by 
a  million. 

For  a  year  Prussia  and  Austria  governed  the  two 
provinces  in  common;  for  another  year  Prussia  gov- 
erned one,  and  Austria  governed  the  other.  Then 
Prussia  and  Austria  went  to  war  with  each  other 
in  1866.  The  former  conquered  the  latter,  expelled 
her  from  Germany,  and  incorporated  both  duchies 
outright  in  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia. 

Out  of  this  annexation  of  half  a  century  ago  has 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  211 

grown  a  question  which  will  demand  and  ought  to 
receive  the  attention  of  the  world  at  this  time  of 
general  reorganization.  Holstein  was  inhabited  by 
a  population  of  about  600,000,  who  were  German 
in  race  and  language  and  sympathies.  These  people 
were  glad  to  be  united  with  Germany,  though  they 
would  have  preferred  to  enter  the  North  German  Con- 
federation as  a  separate  state,  rather  than  be  incor- 
porated in  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia.  The  other  prov- 
ince, Schleswig,  had  a  mixed  population.  About 
250,000  were  Germans,  about  150,000  were  Danes. 
The  latter  desired  to  remain  with  Denmark  and,  had 
the  principle  of  nationality  been  observed,  they  would 
have  been  permitted  to.  They  spoke  the  Danish 
language,  were  Danish  in  blood,  and  were  located  in 
the  northern  part  of  Schleswig,  contiguous  to  Den- 
mark. 

It  seemed  at  one  moment  as  if  their  wishes  would 
be  satisfied,  the  justice  of  their  claims  being  so  ob- 
vious and  unimpeachable.  A  provision  was  inserted 
in  the  Treaty  of  Prague  which  terminated  the  Austro- 
Prussian  war  of  1866  to  the  effect  "  that  the  people 
of  the  northern  district  of  Schleswig  shall  be  again 
reunited  with  Denmark  if  they  shall,  by  a  popular 
vote,  express  the  desire  to  be."  This  provision  was 
inserted  on  the  insistence  of  Austria,  at  the  moment 
that  she  was,  under  compulsion,  leaving  Germany. 
Had  it  been  observed,  there  would  have  been  no 
Schleswig  question  demanding  solution  in  our  day. 

But  the  promise  that  the  people  concerned  might 
decide  their  future  allegiance  was  never  kept.  This 
provision  was  a  dead  letter  for  twelve  years,  from 


212  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

1866  to  1878.  Then  in  1878  it  was  abrogated  by 
the  two  powers,  Germany  and  Austria,  neither  of 
which  consulted  the  wishes  of  the  Schleswigers.  In 
that  year  Bismarck  was  able  to  render  certain  services 
to  Austria  in  the  Balkans,  and  in  return  he  asked 
that  Austria  consent  to  "  revise  "  this  clause  by  for- 
mally declaring  it  "  null  and  void."  Austria  agreed, 
and  thus  the  Schleswigers  were  left  to  the  mercy 
of  Prussia. 

Since  that  day  the  Prussian  Government  has  op- 
pressed the  Danes  of  Schleswig  as  it  has  oppressed 
the  people  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  as  it  has  long  op- 
pressed the  Poles,  acquired  in  the  three  infamous 
partitions  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Prussia  has 
ruled  despotically.  She  has  made  every  effort  to 
stamp  out  the  Danish  language,  to  prevent  its  being 
taught  in  the  schools,  although  it  was  the  mother 
tongue  of  those  attending  them.  In  1889  it  was 
forbidden  to  teach  Danish  under  any  circumstances 
whatever.  Nor  might  any  Schleswig  family  engage 
a  Danish  tutor  for  purposes  of  private  instruction. 
Even  parents  were  liable  to  prosecution  if  they  gave 
systematic  instruction  in  Danish  to  their  children. 
Nor  were  they  permitted  to  send  their  children  to 
Denmark  to  be  educated.  For  fifty  years  the  people 
of  North  Schleswig  have  been  subjected  to  this  igno- 
ble and  pitiless  persecution,  but  they  have  not  been 
Germanized  or  Prussianized.  However,  being  few 
in  numbers,  less  than  200,000,  their  grievances  could 
gain  no  hearing,  no  redress.  In  the  fall  of  1918, 
when  Germany  collapsed,  these  long  maltreated  peo- 
ple demanded   that   Prussia  renounce  all  claims  to 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  213 

them,  and  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  be  united 
with  their  kin  in  the  kingdom  of  Denmark.  Whether 
their  demand  would  be  granted  by  the  world  in  diplo- 
matic congress  assembled  remained  to  be  seen. 

Sweden  and  Norway 

Another  outstanding  feature  of  recent  Scandina- 
vian history  has  been  the  relation  of  Sweden  and 
Norway  toward  each  other.  We  have  seen  that  in 
1814  Norway  was  torn  from  Denmark  by  the  con- 
querors of  Napoleon  and  given  to  Sweden.  The 
Norwegians  were  not  consulted  in  this  transaction. 
They  were  regarded  as  a  negligible  quantity,  a  pas- 
sive pawn  in  the  international  game,  a  conception 
that  proved  erroneous,  for  no  sooner  did  they  hear 
that  they  were  being  handed  by  outsiders  from  Den- 
mark to  Sweden  than  they  protested,  and  proceeded 
to  organize  resistance.  Claiming  that  the  Danish 
King's  renunciation  of  the  crown  of  Norway  restored 
that  crown  to  themselves,  they  proceeded  to  elect 
a  king  of  their  own.  May  17,  1814,  and  they  adopted 
a  liberal  constitution,  the  Constitution  of  Eidsvold, 
establishing  a  Parliament,  or  Storthing, 

But  the  King  of  Sweden,  to  whom  this  country 
had  been  assigned  by  the  consent  of  the  powers, 
did  not  propose  to  be  deprived  of  it  by  act  of  the 
Norwegians  themselves.  He  sent  the  Crown  Prince, 
Bernadotte,  into  Norway  to  take  possession.  A  war 
resulted  between  the  Swedes  and  the  Norwegians, 
the  latter  being  victorious.  Thereupon  the  great  pow- 
ers intervened  so  peremptorily  that  the  newly  elected 


214  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Norwegian  king,  Christian,  resigned  his  crown  into 
the  hands  of  the  Storthing,  The  Storthing  then  ac- 
quiesced in  the  union  with  Sweden,  but  only  after 
having  formally  elected  the  King  of  Sweden  as  the 
King  of  Norway,  thus  asserting  its  sovereignty,  and 
also  after  the  King  had  promised  to  recognize  the 
Constitution  of  1814,  which  the  Norwegians  had 
given  themselves. 

Thus  there  was  no  fusion  of  Norway  and  Sweden. 
There  were  two  kingdoms  and  one  king.  The  same 
person  was  King  of  Sweden  and  King  of  Norway, 
but  he  governed  each  according  to  its  own  laws, 
and  by  means  of  separate  ministries.  No  Swede 
could  hold  office  in  Norway,  no  Norwegian  in 
Sweden.  Each  country  had  its  separate  constitution, 
its  separate  parliament.  In  Sweden  the  Parliament, 
or  Diet,  consisted  of  four  houses,  representing  respec- 
tively the  nobility,  the  clergy,  the  cities,  and  the  peas- 
antry. In  Norway  the  Parliament,  or  Storthing, 
consisted  of  two  chambers,  Sweden  had  a  strong 
aristocracy,  Norway  only  a  small  and  feeble  one. 
Swedish  government  and  society  were  aristocratic 
and  feudal,  Norwegian  very  democratic.  Norway,  in- 
deed, was  a  land  of  peasants,  who  owned  their  farms, 
and  fisherfolk,  sturdy,  simple,  independent.  Each 
country  had  its  own  language,  each  its  own  capital, 
that  of  Sweden  at  Stockholm,  that  of  Norway  at 
Christiania. 

The  two  kingdoms,  therefore,  were  very  dissimilar, 
with  their  difiFerent  languages,  different  institutions, 
and  difiFerent  conditions.  They  had  in  common  a 
king,  and  ministers  of  war  and  foreign  affairs.     The 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  215 

connection  between  the  two  countries,  limited  as  it 
was,  led  during  the  century  to  frequent  and  bitter 
disagreements,  ending  a  few  years  ago  in  their  final 
separation. 

Under  Oscar  II,  who  ruled  from  1872  to  1907,  the 
relations  between  Sweden  and  Norway  became  acute, 
leading  finally  to  complete  rupture.  Friction  between 
them  had  existed  ever  since  1814,  and  had  provoked 
frequent  crises.  The  fundamental  cause  had  lain  in 
the  different  conceptions  prevalent  among  the  two 
peoples  as  to  the  real  nature  of  the  union  effected  in 
that  year.  The  Swedes  maintained  that  Norway  was 
unqualifiedly  ceded  to  them  by  the  Treaty  of  Kiel 
in  1814;  that  they  later  were  willing  to  recognize  that 
the  Norwegians  should  have  a  certain  amount  of  inde- 
pendence; that  they,  nevertheless,  possessed  certain 
rights  in  Norway  and  preponderance  in  the  Union. 
The  Norwegians,  on  the  other  hand,  maintained  that 
the  Union  rested,  not  upon  the  Treaty  of  Kiel,  a 
treaty  between  Denmark  and  Sweden,  but  upon  their 
own  act;  that  they  had  been  independent,  and  had 
drawn  up  a  constitution  for  themselves,  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Eidsvold ;  that  they  had  voluntarily  united 
themselves  with  Sweden  by  freely  electing  the  King 
of  Sweden  as  King  of  Norway;  that  there  was  no 
fusion  of  the  two  states;  that  Sweden  had  no  power 
in  Norway;  that  Sweden  had  no  preponderance  in 
the  Union,  but  that  the  two  states  were  on  a  plane 
of  entire  equality.  With  two  such  dissimilar  views 
friction  could  not  fail  to  develop,  and  it  began  imme- 
diately after  1814  on  a  question  of  trivial  importance. 
The  Norwegians  were  resolved  to  manage  their  own 


2i6  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

internal  affairs  as  they  saw  fit,  without  any  intermix- 
ture of  Swedish  influence.  But  their  King  was  also 
King  of  Sweden,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  lived  in 
Sweden  most  of  the  time,  and  was  rarely  seen  in 
Norway.  Moreover,  Sweden  was  in  population  much 
the  larger  partner  in  this  uncomfortable  union. 

By  the  Constitution  of  Eidsvold  the  King  had  only 
a  suspensive  veto  over  the  laws  of  the  Storthing, 
the  Norwegian  parliament.  Any  law  could  be  en- 
acted over  that  veto  if  passed  by  three  successive 
Storthings,  with  intervals  of  three  years  between  the 
votes.  The  process  was  slow,  but  sufficient  to  insure 
victory  in  any  cause  in  which  the  Norwegians  were 
in  earnest.  It  was  thus  that,  despite  the  King's  veto, 
they  carried  through  the  abolition  of  the  Norwegian 
nobility.  Contests  between  the  Storthing  and  the 
King  of  Norway,  occurring  from  time  to  time,  over 
the  question  of  the  national  flag,  of  annual  sessions, 
and  other  matters,  kept  alive  the  antipathy  of  the 
Norwegians  to  the  Union.  Meanwhile,  their  pros- 
perity increased.  Particularly  did  they  develop  an 
important  commerce.  One-fourth  of  the  merchant 
marine  of  the  continent  of  Europe  passed  gradually 
into  their  hands.  This  gave  rise  to  a  question  more 
serious  than  any  that  had  hitherto  arisen — that  of  the 
consular  service. 

About  1892  began  a  fateful  discussion  over  the  ques- 
tion of  the  consular  service.  The  Norwegian  Parlia- 
ment demanded  a  separate  consular  service  for  Nor- 
way to  be  conducted  by  itself,  to  care  for  Norway's 
commercial  interests,  so  much  more  important  than 
those  of  Sweden.    This  the  King  would  not  grant,  on 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  217 

the  ground  that  it  would  break  up  the  Union,  that 
Sweden  and  Norway  could  not  have  two  foreign 
policies.  The  conflict  thus  begun  dragged  on  for 
years,  embittering  the  relations  of  the  Norwegians 
and  the  Swedes  and  inflaming  passions  until  in  1905 
(June  7)  the  Norwegian  Parliament  declared  unani- 
mously "  that  the  Union  with  Sweden  under  one 
king  has  ceased."  The  war  feeling  in  Sweden  was 
strong,  but  the  Government  finally  decided,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  evils  of  a  conflict,  to  recognize  the  dis- 
solution of  the  Union,  on  condition  that  the  question 
of  separation  should  be  submitted  to  the  people  of 
Norway.  Sweden  held  that  there  was  no  proof  that 
the  Norwegian  people  desired  this,  but  was  evidently 
of  the  opinion  that  the  whole  crisis  was  simply  the 
work  of  the  Storthing.  That  such  an  opinion  was 
erroneous  was  established  by  the  vote  on  August  13, 
1905,  which  showed  over  368,000  in  favor  of  separa- 
tion and  only  184  votes  in  opposition.  A  conference 
was  then  held  at  Carlstad  to  draw  up  a  treaty  or 
agreement  of  dissolution.  This  agreement  provided 
that  any  disputes  arising  in  the  future  between  the 
two  countries,  which  could  not  be  settled  by  direct 
diplomatic  negotiations,  should  be  referred  to  the 
Hague  International  Arbitration  Tribunal.  It  further 
provided  for  the  establishment  of  a  neutral  zone  along 
the  frontiers  of  the  two  countries,  on  which  no  mili- 
tary fortifications  should  ever  be  erected. 

Later  in  the  year  the  Norwegians  chose  Prince 
Charles  of  Denmark,  grandson  of  the  then  King  of 
Denmark,  as  King  of  Norway.  There  was  a  strong 
feeling  in  favor  of  a  republic,  but  it  seemed  clear  that 


2i8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

the  election  of  a  king  would  be  more  acceptable  to  the 
monarchies  of  Europe,  and  would  avoid  all  possibili- 
ties of  foreign  intervention.  The  new  king  assumed 
the  name  of  Haakon  VII,  thus  indicating  the  histori- 
cal continuity  of  the  independent  kingdom  of  Norway 
which  had  existed  in  the  Middle  Ages.  He  took  up 
his  residence  in  Christiania. 

On  December  8,  1907,  Oscar  II,  since  1905  King  of 
Sweden  only,  died  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son  as 
Gustavus  V. 

In  1909  Sweden  took  a  long  step  toward  democracy. 
A  franchise  reform  bill,  which  had  long  been  before 
Parliament,  was  finally  passed.  Manhood  suffrage 
was  estabHshed  for  the  Lower  House,  and  the  quali- 
fications for  election  to  the  Upper  House  were  greatly 
reduced. 

In  Norway,  men  who  have  reached  the  age  of 
twenty-five,  and  who  have  been  residents  of  the  coun- 
try for  five  years,  have  the  right  to  vote.  By  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  adopted  in  1907  the  right  to 
vote  for  members  of  the  Storthing  was  granted  to 
women  who  meet  the  same  qualifications,  and  who,  in 
addition,  pay,  or  whose  husbands  pay,  a  tax  upon  an 
income  ranging  from  about  seventy-five  dollars  in  the 
country  to  about  one  hundred  dollars  in  cities.  About 
300,000  of  the  550,000  Norwegian  women  of  the  age 
of  twenty-five  or  older  thus  secured  the  suffrage. 
They  had  previously  enjoyed  the  suffrage  in  local 
elections. 

Sweden  has  a  population  of  about  five  and  a  half 
millions ;  Norway  of  less  than  two  and  a  half  millions. 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  219 

Spain 

In  the  Iberian  peninsula  are  two  of  the  lesser  states 
of  Europe,  Spain  and  Portugal.  Spain  possesses  a 
large  territory  and  a  population  of  twenty  million, 
yet  not  since  the  sixteenth  century  has  she  played  an 
important  role  in  history.  Between  the  Napoleonic 
period  and  the  Franco-Prussian  War  her  life  flowed  on 
heavily  in  the  traditional  channels  of  the  old  regime, 
of  monarchical  arbitrariness  and  pettiness,  of  intel- 
lectual and  religious  intolerance,  of  governmental 
incompetence,  of  economic  lethargy.  Against  the 
stupidity  and  essential  meaninglessness  of  such  a  sys- 
tem and  against  the  monarch  who  personified  it, 
Isabella  II,  a  revolt  finally  broke  out  in  1868  which 
speedily  drove  the  Queen  into  exile  in  France,  whence 
she  was  not  destined  to  return.  The  reign  of  the 
Spanish  Bourbons  was  declared  at  an  end,  and  uni- 
versal suffrage,  religious  liberty,  and  freedom  of  the 
press  were  proclaimed. 

Then  began  a  troubled  and  changeful  period  which 
lasted  several  years.  A  national  assembly  was  elected 
by  universal  suffrage  and  the  future  government  of 
Spain  was  left  to  its  determination.  It  pronounced  in 
favor  of  a  monarchy  and  against  a  republic.  It  then 
ransacked  Europe  for  a  king  and  finally  chose  Prince 
Leopold  of  Hohenzollern.  His  candidacy  is  important 
in  history  as  having  been  the  immediate  occasion  of 
the  Franco-Prussian  War.  In  the  end  Leopold  de- 
clined the  invitation. 

In  November,  1870,  the  crown  was  offered  by  a  vote 
of  191  out  of  311  to  Amadeo,  second  son  of  Victor 


220  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Emmanuel  II,  King  of  Italy/  The  smallness  of  tKe 
majority  was  ominous.  The  new  king's  reign  was  des- 
tined to  be  short  and  troubled.  Landing  in  Spain  at 
the  close  of  1870,  he  was  coldly  received.  Opposition 
to  him  came  from  several  sources — from  the  Repub- 
licans, who  were  opposed  to  any  monarch;  from  the 
Carlists,  who  supported  a  pretender  to  the  throne; 
from  the  supporters  of  Alfonso,  son  of  Isabella,  who 
held  that  he  was  the  legitimate  ruler.  Amadeo  was 
disliked  also  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  was  a  for- 
eigner. The  clergy  attacked  him  for  his  adherence 
to  constitutional  principles  of  government.  No  strong 
body  of  politicians  supported  him.  Ministries  rose 
and  fell  with  great  rapidity,  eight  in  two  years,  one 
of  them  lasting  only  seventeen  days.  Each  change 
left  the  government  more  disorganized  and  more 
unpopular.  Believing  that  the  problem  of  giving  peace 
to  Spain  was  insoluble,  and  wearying  of  an  uneasy 
crown,  Amadeo,  in  February,  1873,  abdicated. 

Immediately  the  Cortes  or  Parliament  declared 
Spain  a  republic  by  a  vote  of  258  to  32.  But  the  ad- 
vent of  the  Republic  did  not  bring  peace.  Indeed,  its 
history  was  brief  and  agitated.  European  powers, 
with  the  exception  of  Switzerland,  withdrew  their 
diplomatic  representatives.  The  United  States  alone 
recognized  the  new  government.  The  Republic  lasted 
from  February,  1873,  to  the  end  of  December,  1874. 
It  established  a  wide  suffrage,  proclaimed  religious 
liberty,  proposed  the  complete  separation  of  Church 
and  State,  and  voted  unanimously  for  the  immediate 

'  Sixty-three  voted  for  a  republic ;  the  other  votes  were  scattering 
or  blank. 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  221 

emancipation  of  slaves  in  Porto  Rico.     Then  it  fell. 

The  causes  of  its  fall  were  numerous.  The  funda- 
mental one  was  that  the  Spaniards  had  had  no  long 
political  training,  essential  for  efficient  self-govern- 
ment, no  true  experience  in  party  management.  The 
leaders  did  not  work  together  harmoniously.  More- 
over, the  Republicans,  once  in  power,  immediately 
broke  up  into  various  groups,  which  fell  to  wrangling 
with  each  other.  The  enemies  of  the  Republic  were 
numerous :  the  Monarchists,  the  clergy,  offended  by 
the  proclamation  of  religious  liberty,  all  those  who 
profited  by  the  old  regime  and  who  resented  the  re- 
forms which  were  threatened.  Also,  the  problems 
that  faced  the  new  government  increased  the  con- 
fusion. Three  wars  were  in  progress  during  the  brief 
life  of  the  Republic — a  war  in  Cuba,  a  Carlist  war,  and 
a  war  with  the  Federalists  in  southern  Spain. 

Presidents  succeeded  each  other  rapidly.  Figueras 
was  in  office  four  months.  Pi  y  Margall  six  weeks, 
Salmeron  and  Castelar  for  short  periods.  Finally, 
Serrano  became  practically  dictator.  The  fate  of  the 
Republic  was  determined  by  the  generals  of  the  army, 
the  most  powerful  body  in  the  country,  who  declared, 
in  December,  1874,  in  favor  of  Alfonso,  son  of  Isabella 
IL  The  Republic  fell  without  a  struggle.  Alfonso, 
landing  in  Spain  early  in  1875,  and  being  received  in 
Madrid  with  great  enthusiasm,  assumed  the  govern- 
ment, promising  a  constitutional  monarchy.  Thus, 
six  years  after  the  dethronement  of  Isabella  her  son 
was  welcomed  back  as  king.  The  new  king  was  now 
seventeen  years  of  age.  His  reign  lasted  ten  years, 
until  his  death  in  November,  1885.     In  1876  a  new 


222  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

constitution  was  voted,  the  last  in  the  long  line  of 
ephemeral  documents  issuing  during  the  century  from 
either  monarch  or  Cortes  or  revolutionary  junta. 
Still  in  force,  the  Constitution  of  1876  creates  a  re- 
sponsible ministry,  and  a  Parliament  of  two  chambers. 
Spain  possesses  the  machinery  of  parliamentary  gov- 
ernment, ministries  rising  and  falling  according  to  the 
votes  of  Parliament.  Practically,  however,  the  politi- 
cal welfare  is  largely  mimic,  determined  by  the  desire 
for  office,  not  by  devotion  to  principles  or  policies. 

Alfonso  XII  died  in  1885.  His  wife,  an  Austrian 
princess,  Maria  Christina,  was  proclaimed  regent  for  a 
child  born  a  few  months  later,  the  present  King,  Al- 
fonso XIII.  Maria  Christina,  during  the  sixteen  years 
of  her  regency,  confronted  many  difficulties.  Of  these 
the  most  serious  was  the  condition  of  Cuba,  Spain's 
chief  colony.  An  insurrection  had  broken  out  in  that 
island  in  1868,  occasioned  by  gross  misgovernment  by 
the  mother  country.  This  Cuban  war  dragged  on  for 
ten  years,  cost  Spain  nearly  100,000  men  and  $200,- 
000,000  and  was  only  ended  in  1878  by  means  of  lavish 
bribes  and  liberal  promises  of  reform  in  the  direction 
of  self-government.  As  these  promises  were  not  ful- 
filled, and  as  the  condition  of  the  Cubans  became  more 
unendurable,  another  rebellion  broke  out  in  1895. 
This  new  war,  prosecuted  with  great  and  savage  se- 
verity by  Weyler,  ultimately  aroused  the  United 
States  to  intervene  in  the  interests  of  humanity  and 
civilization.  A  war  resulted  between  the  United 
States  and  Spain  in  1898,  which  proved  most  disas- 
trous to  the  latter.  Her  naval  power  was  annihilated 
in  the  battles  of  Santiago  and  Cavite;  her  army  in 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  223 

Santiago  was  forced  to  surrender,  and  she  was  com- 
pelled to  sign  the  Treaty  of  Paris  of  1898,  by  which 
she  renounced  Cuba,  Porto  Rico,  and  the  Philippine 
Islands.  The  Spanish  Empire,  which  at  the  opening 
of  the  nineteenth  century  bulked  large  on  the  map  of 
the  world,  comprising  immense  possessions  in  Amer- 
ica and  the  islands  of  both  hemispheres,  has  disap- 
peared. Revolts  in  Central  and  South  America,  be- 
ginning when  Joseph  Napoleon  became  king  in  1808, 
and  ending  with  Cuban  independence  ninety  years 
later,  have  left  Spain  with  the  mere  shreds  of  her 
former  possessions,  Rio  de  Oro,  Rio  Muni  in  west- 
ern Africa,  some  land  about  her  ancient  presidios  in 
Morocco,  and  a  few  small  islands  off  the  African  coast. 
The  disappearance  of  the  Spanish  colonial  empire  is 
one  of  the  most  significant  features  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Once  one  of  the  great  world  powers,  Spain 
is  to-day  a  state  of  inferior  rank. 

In  1902  the  present  King,  Alfonso  XIII,  formally 
assumed  the  reins  of  government.  He  married  in 
May,  1906,  a  member  of  the  royal  family  of  England, 
Princess  Ena  of  Battenberg.  Profound  and  numerous 
reforms  are  necessary  to  range  the  country  in  the 
line  of  progress.  Though  universal  suffrage  was  es- 
tablished in  1890,  political  conditions  and  methods 
have  not  changed.  Illiteracy  is  widespread.  Out  of  a 
population  of  20,000,000  perhaps  12,000,000  are  illit- 
erate. In  recent  years  attempts  have  been  made  to 
improve  this  situation;  also  to  reduce  the  influence  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  state.  Nothing 
important  has  yet  been  accomplished  in  this  direction. 
Liberty  of  public  worship  has  only  recently  been  se- 
cured for  the  members  of  other  churches. 


224  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Portugal 

Portugal,  too,  the  other  Iberian  state,  droned  along 
during  most  of  the  nineteenth  century,  under  incom- 
petent rulers  and  selfish  and  unenlightened  privileged 
classes,  the  dreary  monotony  of  her  life  only  relieved 
by  an  occasional  national  calamity,  as  when,  in  1822, 
her  leading  colony,  Brazil,  revolted  and  launched  out 
upon  an  independent  career  as  an  Empire.  Several 
reigns  followed  each  other,  turbulent  in  a  petty  way, 
or  mild  and  uneventful,  as  the  case  might  be. 

But,  as  the  century  wore  on,  and  particularly  under 
the  reign  of  Carlos  I,  from  1899  to  1908,  there  was 
a  ruffling  of  the  waters  and  certain  radical  parties. 
Republican,  Socialist,  grew  up.  Discontent  with  so 
stagnant  a  regime  expressed  itself  increasingly  by 
deeds  of  violence.  The  Government  replied  by  be- 
coming more  and  more  arbitrary.  The  King,  Carlos 
I,  even  assumed  to  alter  the  Charter  of  1826,  still 
the  basis  of  Portuguese  political  life,  by  mere  decree. 
The  controversy  between  Liberals,  Radicals,  and  Con- 
servatives developed  astounding  bitterness.  Parlia- 
mentary institutions  ceased  to  work  normally;  nec- 
essary legislation  could  not  be  secured.  On  Febru- 
ary I,  1908,  the  King  and  the  Crown  Prince  were 
assassinated  in  the  streets  of  Lisbon.  The  King's 
second  son,  Manuel,  succeeded  him.  Manuel's  reign 
was  brief,  for  in  October,  1910,  a  revolution  broke  out 
in  Lisbon.  After  several  days  of  severe  street  fight- 
ing the  monarchy  was  overthrown  and  a  republic 
was  proclaimed.  The  King  escaped  to  England.  Dr. 
Theophile  Braga,  a  native  of  the  Azores,  and  for  over 


THE  SMALL  STATES  OF  EUROPE  225 

forty  years  a  distinguished  man  of  letters,  was  chosen 
President.  The  constitution  was  remodeled  and  liber- 
alized. The  Church  was  separated  from  the  State  in 
191 1,  and  State  payments  for  the  maintenance  and 
expenses  of  worship  ceased. 

Since  1910  Portugal,  therefore,  has  been  a  repub- 
lic. The  problems  confronting  her  are  numerous 
and  serious.  She  is  burdened  with  an  immense  debt, 
disproportionate  to  her  resources,  and  entailing  op- 
pressive taxation.  Although  primary  education  has 
been  compulsory  since  191 1,  over  seventy  per  cent 
of  the  population  over  six  years  of  age  still  remain 
illiterate.  Portugal's  population  is  about  six  millions. 
She  has  small  colonial  possessions  in  Asia  and  exten- 
sive ones  in  Africa,  which  have  thus  far  proved  of 
little  value.  The  Azores  and  Madeira  are  not  colonies, 
but  are  integral  parts  of  the  Republic. 

Portugal  was  destined  to  play  a  minor  but  honora- 
ble role  in  the  European  War,  side  by  side  with  the 
Allies. 

The  only  other  small  states  in  Europe,  besides  those 
mentioned  in  this  chapter,  are  the  ones  which  have 
arisen  during  the  nineteenth  century  in  the  Balkan 
peninsula,  and  whose  history  we  will  now  examine. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  DISRUPTION  OF  THE  OTTOMAN  EMPIRE 
AND  THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES 

While  the  nineteenth  century  saw  thirty  and  more 
separate  states  fused  into  the  federated  German  Em- 
pire, and  the  ten  states  of  the  ItaHan  peninsula  fused 
into  the  unified  Kingdom  of  Italy,  the  same  century 
witnessed  the  disruption  of  another  Empire,  Turkey, 
and  the  early  twentieth  century  saw  its  almost  com- 
plete disappearance  from  the  soil  of  Europe.  While 
the  map  of  central  Europe  was  greatly  simplified,  the 
map  of  southeastern  Europe  became  more  diversi- 
fied. While  in  Germany  and  Italy  small  states  were 
being  united,  European  Turkey  was  being  broken  up 
into  small  states. 

In  1815  Turkey  in  Europe  extended  from  the  Black 
Sea  and  the  ^gean  west  to  the  Adriatic,  and  from 
the  Mediterranean  north  to  the  River  Danube  and, 
even  north  of  the  Danube,  including  what  we  know 
as  Roumania.  In  other  words,  what  the  map  of  1914 
showed  as  Greece,  Serbia,  Montenegro,  Albania,  Bos- 
nia, Herzegovina,  Bulgaria,  Roumania,  and  Turkey 
in  Europe  (Constantinople  and  the  region  directly 
west  of  it),  the  map  of  1815  showed  as  one  solid 
color.  All  was  Turkish.  Turkey  was  the  neighbor 
of  Italy  across  the  Adriatic,  of  Austria,  across  the 

226 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        227 

Danube,  of  Russia  across  the  Pruth  and  the  Black 
Sea.  In  the  eighteenth  century  Turkey  had  extended 
still  farther  north,  but  Russia  and  Austria  had  de- 
spoiled her  of  some  of  her  valuable  lands.  In  the  nine- 
teenth century  it  was,  in  the  main,  her  own  subjects 
who  rose  against  her,  who  tore  her  apart,  and  founded 
a  number  of  independent  states  on  soil  that  was  for- 
merly Turkish.  The  map  of  Europe  shows  no  greater 
change  as  compared  with  the  map  of  a  hundred  years 
ago  than  in  the  Balkan  peninsula.  That  change  is  the 
product  of  a  most  eventful  history,  the  solution  thus 
far  given  to  one  of  the  most  intricate  and  conten- 
tious problems  European  statesmen  have  ever  had 
to  consider,  the  Eastern  Question ;  that  is,  the  question 
of  what  should  be  done  with  the  Turkish  Empire. 

The  Turks,  an  Asiastic,  Mohammedan  people,  had 
conquered  southeastern  Europe  in  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries  and  had  subdued  many  different 
races;  the  Greeks,  claiming  descent  from  the  Greeks 
of  antiquity;  the  Roumanians,  claiming  descent  from 
Roman  colonists  of  the  Empire;  the  Albanians,  and 
various  branches  of  the  great  Slavic  race,  the  Ser- 
bians, Bulgarians,  Bosnians,  and  Montenegrins.  Full 
of  contempt  for  those  whom  they  had  conquered,  the 
Turks  made  no  attempt  to  assimilate  them  or  to  fuse 
them  into  one  body  politic.  They  were  satisfied  with 
reducing  them  to  subjection,  and  with  exploiting 
them.  These  Christian  peoples  were  effaced  for  sev- 
eral centuries  beneath  Mohammedan  oppression, 
their  property  likely  to  be  confiscated,  their  lives 
taken,  whenever  it  suited  their  rulers.  Naturally  they 
hated  their  oppressors  with  a  deathless  hatred  and 


228  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

only  waited  for  their  hour  of  liberation.  The  wars 
through  which  they  sought  to  gain  their  freedom 
began  as  early  as  1804  in  Serbia  and  lasted  over 
into  the  twentieth  century.  The  recent  Balkan  wars 
of  1912  and  1913,  which  were  a  prelude  to  the  war 
of  1914,  constituted  only  an  additional  chapter  in  a 
history  that  was  long,  bloody,  turbulent,  confused, 
and  heroic. 


Serbia 

That  history  can  only  be  summarized  here.  The 
Serbians  were  the  first  to  rise  against  the  Turks, 
as  early  as  1804.  By  their  own  unaided  efforts,  they 
were  able,  in  1820,  to  gain  the  recognition  by  the 
Sultan  of  one  of  their  own  number,  Milosch  Obreno- 
vitch,  as  "  Prince  of  the  Serbians  of  the  Pashalik  of 
Belgrade."  Milosch  sought  to  make  his  title  heredi- 
tary and  to  gain  complete  self-government  for  Serbia 
under  the  overlordship  of  the  Sultan.  This  was 
achieved  in  1830,  to  a  considerable  degree  owing  to 
the  strong  support  given  by  Russia. 

Thus,  after  many  years  of  war  and  negotiations, 
Serbia  ceased  to  be  merely  a  Turkish  province,  and 
became  a  principality  tributary  to  the  Sultan,  but  self- 
governing,  and  with  a  princely  house  ruling  by  right 
of  heredity — the  house  of  Obrenovitch,  which  had 
succeeded  in  crushing  the  earlier  house  of  Kara 
George.  This  was  the  first  state  to  arise  in  the  nine- 
teenth century  out  of  the  dismemberment  of  Euro- 
pean Turkey.     Its  capital  was  Belgrade. 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        229 

The  Greek  War  of  Independence 

The  Greeks  were  the  second  of  these  Balkan  peo- 
ples to  rebel  against  the  Turks.     Rising  in  1821,  they 
fought  a  bitter  and,  on  the  whole,  a  losing  war  against 
their  oppressors  for  several  years.     They  were  res- 
cued from  impending  defeat  by  the  intervention  in 
1827  of  three   great  powers,   England,   Russia,   and 
France.     The   three  powers   destroyed   the   Turkish 
fleet   at   the   battle   of   Navarino.      In   the   following 
year,    1828-9,    Russia   alone   carried   on   a   successful 
land  war  against  the  Turks.    As  the  outcome  of  this 
series  of  events,  Greece  became  a  kingdom,  entirely 
independent  of  Turkey,  its  independence  guaranteed 
by   the   three  powers   Russia,   England,   and   France 
(1830).      Greece   was   thus   the   first   of   the   Balkan 
states  to  gain  complete  independence.    The  Danubian 
principalities,   Moldavia   and   Wallachia,   were   made 
practically,  though  not  nominally,  independent.     The 
Sultan's  power  in  Europe  was,  therefore,  considera- 
bly reduced.   In  1833,  Otto,  a  lad  of  seventeen,  second 
son  of  King  Louis  I  of  Bavaria,  became  the  first  King 
of   Greece.     A   new   Christian   state   had   thus   been 
created  in  southeastern  Europe. 

ROUMANIA 

By  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  only 
part  of  the  Turkish  Empire  that  had  become  inde- 
pendent was  Greece;  Serbia  and  Moldavia- Wallachia 
were  semi-independent  and  aspired  to  become  com- 
pletely so.  The  two  latter  provinces  shortly  declared 
themselves  united  under  the   single  name  of  Rou- 


230  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

mania  and,  in  1866,  they  chose  as  their  prince  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Roman  Catholic  branch  of  the  Hohenzol- 
lern  family,  Charles  I.  This  German  prince,  who  was 
the  ruler  of  Roumania  until  his  death  in  1914,  was 
at  that  time  twenty-seven  years  of  age.  He  at  once 
set  to  work  to  study  the  conditions  of  his  newly 
adopted  country,  ably  seconded  in  this  by  his  wife, 
a  German  princess,  whose  literary  gift  was  to  win 
her  a  great  reputation,  and  was  to  be  used  in  the 
interest  of  Roumania.  As  "  Carmen  Sylva  "  she  wrote 
poems  and  stories,  published  a  collection  of  Rouma- 
nian folklore,  and  encouraged  the  national  idea  by 
showing  her  preference  for  the  native  Roumanian 
dress  and  for  old  Roumanian  customs. 

Charles  I  was  primarily  a  soldier,  and  the  great  work 
of  the  early  years  of  his  reign  was  to  build  up  the 
army,  as  he  considered  it  essential  if  Roumania  was 
to  be  really  independent  in  her  attitude  toward  Rus- 
sia and  Turkey.  He  increased  the  size  of  the  army, 
equipped  it  with  Prussian  guns,  and  had  it  drilled  by 
Prussia  officers.  The  wisdom  of  this  was  apparent 
when  the  Eastern  Question  was  again  reopened. 

Revolts  in  the  Balkans 

In  1875  the  Eastern  Question  entered  once  more 
upon  an  acute  phase.  Movements  began  which  were 
to  have  a  profound  effect  upon  the  various  sections 
of  the  peninsula.  An  insurrection  broke  out  in  the 
summer  of  that  year  in  Herzegovina,  a  province  west 
of  Serbia.  For  years  the  peasantry  had  suffered  from 
gross  misrule.    The  oppression  of  the  Turks  became 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        231 

so  grinding  and  was  accompanied  by  acts  so  barbar- 
ous and  inhuman  that  the  peasants  finally  rebelled. 
These  peasants  were  Slavs,  and  as  such  were  aided 
by  Slavs  from  neighboring  regions,  Bosnia,  Serbia, 
and  Bulgaria,  They  were  made  all  the  more  bitter 
because  they  saw  Slavs  in  Serbia  comparatively  con- 
tented, as  these  were  largely  self-governed.  Why 
should  not  they  themselves  enjoy  as  good  conditions 
as  others?  Religious  and  racial  hatred  of  Christian 
and  Slav  against  the  infidel  Turk  flamed  up  through- 
out the  peninsula.  Christians  could  not  rest  easy 
witnessing  the  outrages  committed  upon  their  co- 
religionists. And  just  at  this  time  those  outrages 
attained  a  ferocity  that  shocked  all  Europe. 

Early  in  1876  the  Christians  in  Bulgaria,  a  large 
province  of  European  Turkey,  rose  against  the  Turk- 
ish officials,  killing  some  of  them.  The  revenge 
taken  by  the  Turks  was  of  incredible  atrocity.  Pour- 
ing regular  troops  and  the  ferocious  irregulars  called 
Bashi-Bazouks  into  the  province,  they  butchered  thou- 
sands with  every  refinement  or  coarseness  of  brutality. 
In  the  valley  of  the  Maritza  all  but  fifteen  of  eighty 
villages  were  destroyed.  In  Batak,  a  town  of  7,000 
inhabitants,  five  thousand  men,  women,  and  children 
were  savagely  slaughtered  with  indescrible  treachery 
and  cruelty. 

These  Bulgarian  atrocities  thrilled  all  Europe  with 
horror.  Gladstone,  emerging  from  retirement,  de- 
nounced "the  unspeakable  Turk"  in  a  flaming 
pamphlet.  He  demanded  that  England  cease  to  sup- 
port a  government  which  was  an  affront  to  the  laws 
of  God,  and  urged  that  the  Turks  be  expelled  from 


232  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Europe  "  bag  and  baggage."     The  public  opinion  of 
Europe  was  aroused. 

In  July,  1876,  Serbia  and  Montenegro  declared  war 
against  Turkey,  and  the  insurrection  of  the  Bulgarians 
became  general.  The  Russian  people  became  in- 
tensely excited  in  their  sympathy  with  their  co- 
religionists and  their  fellow-Slavs.  Finally  the  Rus- 
sian Government  declared  war  upon  Turkey,  April 
24,  1877.  The  war  lasted  until  the  close  of  Jan- 
uary, 1878.  The  chief  feature  of  the  campaign  was 
the  famous  siege  of  Plevna,  which  the  Turks  defended 
for  five  months,  but  which  finally  surrendered.  This 
broke  the  back  of  Turkish  resistance  and  the  Rus- 
sians marched  rapidly  toward  Constantinople.  The 
Sultan  sought  peace,  and  on  March  3,  1878,  the 
Treaty  of  San  Stefano  was  concluded  between  Rus- 
sia and  Turkey.  By  this  treaty  the  Porte  recog- 
nized the  complete  independence  of  Serbia,  Mon- 
tenegro, and  Roumania,  and  made  certain  cessions 
of  territory  to  the  two  former  states.  The  main 
feature  of  the  treaty  concerned  Bulgaria,  which  was 
made  a  self-governing  state,  tributary  to  the  Sultan. 
Its  frontiers  were  very  liberally  drawn.  Its  territory 
was  to  include  nearly  all  of  European  Turkey,  be- 
tween Roumania  and  Serbia  to  the  north,  and  Greece 
to  the  south.  Only  a  broken  strip  across  the  penin- 
sula, from  Constantinople  west  to  the  Adriatic,  was 
to  be  left  to  Turkey.  The  new  state,  therefore,  was 
to  include  not  only  Bulgaria  proper,  but  Roumelia 
to  the  south  and  most  of  Macedonia.  Gladstone's 
desire  for  the  expulsion  of  the  Turks  from  Europe 
"  bag  and  baggage  "  was  nearly  realized. 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        233 

But  this  treaty  was  not  destined  to  be  carried  out. 
The  other  powers  objected  to  having  the  Eastern 
Question  solved  without  their  consent.  England  par- 
ticularly, fearing  Russian  expansion  southward  to- 
ward the  Mediterranean,  and  believing  that  Bulgaria 
and  the  other  states  would  be  merely  tools  of  Rus- 
sia, declared  that  the  arrangements  concerning  the 
peninsula  must  be  determined  by  the  great  Euro- 
pean powers,  that  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano  must 
be  submitted  to  a  general  congress  on  the  ground 
that,  according  to  the  international  law  of  Europe, 
the  Eastern  Question  could  not  be  settled  by  one  na- 
tion, but  only  by  the  concert  of  powers,  as  it  affected 
them  all.  Austria  joined  the  protest,  wishing  a  part 
of  the  spoils  of  Turkey  for  herself.  Russia  naturally 
objected  to  allowing  those  who  had  not  fought  to 
determine  the  outcome  of  her  victory.  But  as  the 
powers  were  insistent,  particularly  England,  then 
under  the  Beaconsfield  administration,  and  as  she  was 
in  no  position  for  further  hostilities,  she  yielded.  The 
Congress  of  Berlin  was  held  under  the  presidency  of 
Bismarck,  Beaconsfield  himself  representing  England. 
It  drew  up  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  which  was  signed 
July  13,  1878.  By  this  treaty  Montenegro,  Serbia, 
and  Roumania  were  rendered  completely  independent 
of  Turkey.  But  Bulgaria  was  divided  into  three  parts, 
one  of  which,  called  Macedonia,  was  handed  back  to 
Turkey,  and  another,  called  Eastern  Roumelia,  was 
to  be  still  subject  to  the  Sultan,  but  to  have  a  Chris- 
tian governor  appointed  by  him.  The  third  part, 
Bulgaria,  was  still  to  be  nominally  a  part  of  Turkey, 
but  was  to  elect  its  own  prince  and  was  to  be  self- 


234  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

governing.  The  powers  in  making  these  arrange- 
ments were  thinking  neither  of  Turkey,  nor  of  the 
happiness  of  the  people  who  had  long  been  oppressed 
by  Turkey.  The  Congress  of  Berlin,  like  the  Congress 
of  Vienna  of  1815,  was  indifferent  or  hostile  to  the 
legitimate  national  aspirations  of  oppressed  peoples, 
and  therefore  its  work  has  had  the  same  fate,  it  has 
been  undone  in  one  particular  and  another  and  the 
process  is  continuing  at  the  present  moment,  not  yet 
quite  completed.  As  far  as  humanitarian  considera- 
tions were  concerned,  the  disposition  of  Macedonia 
was  a  colossal  blunder.  Its  people  would  have  been 
far  happier  had  they  formed  a  part  of  Bulgaria.  Ow- 
ing to  the  rival  ambitions  of  the  great  powers,  Mace- 
donia's Christians  were  destined  long  to  suffer  an 
odious  oppression  from  which  more  fortunate  Balkan 
Christians  were   free. 

The  sam.e  powers  found  the  occasion  convenient 
for  taking  various  Turkish  possessions  for  themselves. 
Austria  was  invited  to  "  occupy "  and  administer 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina.  England  was  to  "  occupy  " 
Cyprus.  All  these  territories  were  nominally  still  a 
part  of  the  Turkish  Empire.  Their  position  was 
anomalous,  unclear,  and  destined  to  create  trouble 
in  the  future. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  benefits  assured  by  the 
Treaty  of  Berlin  were  considerable  and  they  were 
due  solely  to  Russia's  intervention,  though  Russia 
herself  drew  little  direct  profit  from  her  war.  Three 
Balkan  states,  long  in  process  of  formation,  Montene- 
gro, Serbia,  and  Roumania,  were  declared  entirely 
independent,   and  a  new   state,   Bulgaria,  had  been 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        235 

called  into  existence,  though  still  slightly  subject  to 
the  Porte.  As  a  result  of  the  treaty,  European  Tur- 
key was  greatly  reduced,  its  population  having  shrunk 
from  seventeen  millions  to  six  millions.  In  other 
words,  eleven  million  people  or  more  had  been  eman- 
cipated from  Turkish  control. 

Bulgaria  After  1878 

The  Treaty  of  Berlin,  while  it  brought  substan- 
tial advantages,  did  not  bring  peace  to  the  Balkan 
peninsula.  Though  diminishing  the  possessions  of 
the  Sultan,  it  did  not  satisfy  the  ambitions  of  the 
various  peoples,  it  did  not  expel  the  Turk  from  Eu- 
rope and  thus  cut  out  the  root  of  the  evil.  Abundant 
sources  of  trouble  remained,  as  the  next  forty  years 
were  to  show.  The  history  of  the  various  states  since 
1878,  both  in  internal  affairs  and  in  their  foreign  rela- 
tions, has  been  agitated;  yet,  despite  disturbances, 
considerable  progress  has  been  made. 

Bulgaria,  of  which  Europe  knew  hardly  anything 
in  1876,  was,  in  1878,  made  an  autonomous  state,  but 
it  did  not  attain  complete  independence,  as  it  was 
nominally  a  part  of  the  Turkish  Empire,  to  which 
it  was  to  pay  tribute.  The  new  principality  owed 
its  existence  to  Russia,  and  for  several  years  Rus- 
sian influence  predominated  in  it.  It  was  started  on 
its  career  by  Russian  officials.  A  constitution  was 
drawn  up  establishing  an  assembly  called  the  So- 
branje.  This  assembly  chose,  as  Prince  of  Bulgaria, 
Alexander  of  Battenberg,  a  young  German  of  twenty- 
two,  a  relative  of  the  Russian  Imperial  House,  sup- 
posedly acceptable  to  the  Czar  (April,  1879). 


236  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

The  Bulgarians  were  grateful  to  the  Russians  for 
their  aid.  They  recognized  those  who  remained  after 
the  war  was  over  as  having  all  the  rights  of  Bulgarian 
citizens,  among  others  the  right  to  hold  ofifice.  Rus- 
sians held  important  positions  in  the  Bulgarian  min- 
istry. They  organized  the  military  forces  and  be- 
came officers.  Before  long,  however,  friction  devel- 
oped, and  gratitude  gave  way  to  indignation  at  the 
high-handed  conduct  of  the  Russians,  who  plainly 
regarded  Bulgaria  as  a  sort  of  province  or  outpost 
of  Russia,  to  be  administered  according  to  Russian 
ideas  and  interests.  The  Russian  ministers  were  ar- 
rogant, and  made  it  evident  that  they  regarded  the 
Czar,  not  Prince  Alexander,  as  their  superior,  whose 
wishes  they  were  bound  to  execute.  The  Prince,  the 
native  army  ofificers,  and  the  people  found  their  posi- 
tion increasingly  humiliating.  Finally,  in  1883,  the 
Russian  ministers  were  virtually  forced  to  resign,  and 
the  Prince  now  relied  upon  Bulgarian  leaders.  This 
caused  an  open  breach  with  Russia,  which  was  further 
widened  by  the  action  of  the  people  of  eastern  Rou- 
melia  in  1885  in  expressing  their  desire  to  be  united 
with  Bulgaria.  Prince  Alexander  agreed  to  this  and 
assumed  the  title  of  "  Prince  of  the  Two  Bulgarias." 
The  powers  protested  against  this  unification,  and 
would  not  recognize  the  change,  but  they  refrained 
from  doing  anything  further. 

Russia,  however,  incensed  at  the  growing  inde- 
pendence of  the  new  state,  which  she  looked  upon 
as  a  mere  satellite,  resolved  to  read  her  a  lesson  in 
humility  by  organizing  a  conspiracy.  The  conspira- 
tors seized  Prince  Alexander  in  his  bedroom  in  the 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        237 

dead  of  night,  forced  him  to  sign  his  abdication,  and 
then  carried  him  of¥  to  Russian  soil.  Alexander  was 
detained  in  Russia  a  short  time,  until  it  was  sup- 
posed that  the  Russian  party  was  thoroughly  estab- 
lished in  power  in  Bulgaria,  when  he  was  permitted 
to  go  to  Austria.  He  was  immediately  recalled  to 
Bulgaria,  returned  to  receive  an  immense  ovation, 
and  then,  at  the  height  of  his  popularity,  in  a  mo- 
ment of  weakness,  abdicated,  apparently  overwhelmed 
by  the  continued  opposition  of  Russia  (September  7, 
1886).  The  situation  was  most  critical.  Two  parties 
advocating  opposite  policies  confronted  each  other; 
one  pro-Russian,  believing  that  Bulgaria  should  ac- 
cept in  place  of  Alexander  any  prince  whom  the 
Czar  should  choose  for  her;  the  other,  national  and 
independent,  rallying  to  the  cry  of  "  Bulgaria  for  the 
Bulgarians."  The  latter  speedily  secured  control,  for- 
tunate in  that  it  had  a  remarkable  leader  in  the  person 
of  Stambuloff,  a  native,  a  son  of  an  innkeeper,  a  man 
of  extraordinary  firmness,  suppleness,  and  courage, 
vigorous  and  intelligent.  Through  him  Russian  efforts 
to  regain  control  of  the  principality  were  foiled  and 
a  new  ruler  was  secured.  Prince  Ferdinand  of  Saxe- 
Coburg,  twenty-six  years  of  age,  who  was  elected 
unanimously  by  the  Sobranje,  July  7,  1887.  Russia 
protested  against  this  action,  and  none  of  the  great 
powers  recognized  Ferdinand,  He  was,  however,  des- 
tined to  rule  until  his  abdication  in  October,  1918. 

Stambuloff  was  the  most  forceful  statesman  devel- 
oped in  the  history  of  the  Balkan  states.  He  suc- 
ceeded in  keeping  Bulgaria  self-dependent.  During 
the  earlier  years  of  his  rule  Ferdinand  relied  upon 


238  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

him,  and,  indeed,  owed  to  him  his  continuance  on  the 
throne.  He  won  the  pretentious  title  of  "  the  Bul- 
garian Bismarck."  His  methods  resembled  those  of 
his  Teutonic  prototype  in  more  than  one  respect. 
For  seven  years  he  was  practically  dictator  of  Bul- 
garia. Russian  plots  continued.  He  repressed  them 
pitilessly.  His  one  fundamental  principle  was  Bul- 
garia for  the  Bulgarians.  His  rule  was  one  of  terror, 
of  suppression  of  liberties,  of  unscrupulousness,  di- 
rected to  patriotic  ends.  His  object  was  to  rid  Bul- 
garia of  Russian,  as  of  Turkish,  control.  Bulgaria 
under  him  increased  in  wealth  and  population.  The 
army  received  a  modern  equipment,  universal  mili- 
tary service  was  instituted,  commerce  was  encour- 
aged, railroads  were  built,  popular  education  begun, 
and  the  capital,  Sofia,  a  dirty,  wretched  Turkish  vil- 
lage, made  over  into  one  of  the  attractive  capitals  of 
Europe.  But  StambulofT  made  a  multitude  of  ene- 
mies, and  as  a  result  he  fell  from  power  in  1894.  In 
the  following  year  he  was  foully  murdered  in  the 
streets  of  Sofia.  But  he  had  done  his  work  thor- 
oughly, and  it  remains  the  basis  of  the  life  of  Bul- 
garia to-day.  The  Turkish  sovereignty  was  merely 
nominal,  and  even  that  was  not  destined  to  endure 
long.  In  March,  1896,  the  election  of  Ferdinand  as 
Prince  was  finally  recognized  by  the  great  powers. 
The  preceding  years  had  been  immensely  significant. 
They  had  thoroughly  consolidated  the  unity  of  Bul- 
garia, had  permitted  her  institutions  to  strike  root, 
had  accustomed  her  to  independence  of  action,  to 
self-reliance.  Those  years,  too,  had  been  used  for 
the  enrichment  of  the  national  life  with  the  agencies 


.THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        239 

of  the  modern  world,  schools,  railways,  an  army. 
Bulgaria  had  a  population  of  about  four  miUion,  a 
capital  in  Sofia,  an  area  of  about  38,000  square  miles. 
She  aspired  to  annex  Macedonia,  where,  however, 
she  was  to  encounter  many  rivals.  She  only  awaited 
a  favorable  opportunity  to  renounce  her  nominal  con- 
nection with  Turkey.  The  opportunity  came  in  igo8. 
On  October  5th  of  that  year  Bulgaria  declared  her 
independence,  and  her  Prince  assumed  the  title  of 
Czar.  The  later  history  of  Bulgaria  may  best  be 
considered  in  connection  with  the  Balkan  wars  of 
1912  and  1913. 

ROUMANIA    AND    SeRBIA    AfTER    1878 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  Russo-Turkish  war  in  1877, 
Roumania  declared  herself  entirely  independent  of 
Turkey.  This  independence  was  recognized  by  the 
Sultan  and  the  powers  at  the  Congress  of  Berlin 
on  condition  that  all  citizens  should  enjoy  legal  equal- 
ity, whatever  their  religion,  a  condition  designed  to 
protect  the  Jews,  who  were  numerous,  but  who  had 
previously  been  without  political  rights. 

In  1881  Roumania  proclaimed  herself  a  kingdom, 
and  her  prince  henceforth  styled  himself  King  Charles 
I.  The  royal  crown  was  made  of  steel  from  a  Turk- 
ish gun  captured  at  Plevna,  a  perpetual  reminder  of 
what  was  her  war  of  independence.  Roumania  has 
created  an  army  on  Prussian  models  of  about  500,000 
men,  has  built  railroads  and  highways,  and  has,  by 
agrarian  legislation,  improved  the  condition  of  the 
peasantry.  The  population  has  steadily  increased,  and 
now  numbers  over  seven  millions.    The  area  of  Rou- 


240  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

mania  is  about  53,000  square  miles.  While  mainly 
an  agricultural  country,  in  recent  years  her  industrial* 
development  has  been  notable,  and  her  commerce  is 
more  important  than  that  of  any  other  Balkan  state. 
Her  government  is  a  constitutional  monarchy,  with 
legislative  chambers.  The  most  important  political 
question  in  recent  years  has  been  a  demand  for  the 
reform  of  the  electoral  system,  which  resembles  the 
Prussian  three-class  system,  and  which  gives  the 
direct  vote  to  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  popula- 
tion. In  1907  the  peasantry  rose  in  insurrection,  de- 
manding agrarian  reforms.  As  more  than  four-fifths 
of  the  population  live  upon  the  land,  and  as  the  popu- 
lation has  steadily  increased,  the  holding  of  each 
peasant  has  correspondingly  decreased.  A  military 
force  of  140,000  men  was  needed  to  quell  the  revolt. 
After  having  restored  order,  the  ministry  intro- 
duced and  carried  various  measures  intended  to  bring 
relief  to  the  peasants  from  their  severest  burdens. 
King  Charles  I  died  on  October  11,  1914,  and  was 
succeeded  by  his  nephew,  Ferdinand  I. 

Serbia,  also,  was  recognized  as  independent  by  the 
Berlin  Treaty  in  1878.  She  proclaimed  herself  a  king- 
dom in  1882.  She  has  had  a  turbulent  history  in 
recent  years.  In  1885  she  declared  war  against  Bul- 
garia, only  to  be  unexpectedly  and  badly  defeated. 
The  financial  policy  was  deplorable.  In  seven  years 
the  debt  increased  from  seven  million  to  three  hun- 
dred and  twelve  million  francs.  The  scandals  of  the 
private  Hfe  of  King  Milan  utterly  discredited  the  mon- 
archy. He  was  forced  to  abdicate  in  1889,  ^^^  was 
succeeded  by  his  twelve-year-old  son,  Alexander  I, 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        241 

who  was  brutally  murdered  in  1903  with  his  wife, 
Queen  Draga,  in  a  midnight  palace  revolution.  The 
new  king,  Peter  I,  found  his  position  for  several  years 
most  unstable.  A  new  and  important  chapter  in  the 
history  of  Serbia  began  with  the  Balkan  War  of 
1912. 

Greece  After  1833 

In  January,  1833,  Otto,  second  son  of  Louis  I, 
the  King  of  Bavaria,  became  King  of  Greece,  a  coun- 
try of  great  poverty,  with  a  population  of  about  750,- 
000,  unaccustomed  to  the  reign  of  law  and  order 
usual  in  western  Europe.  The  kingdom  was  small, 
with  unsatisfactory  boundaries,  lacking  Thessaly, 
which  was  peopled  entirely  by  Greeks.  The  coun- 
try had  been  devastated  by  a  long  and  unusually 
sanguinary  war.  Internal  conditions  were  anarchic. 
Brigandage  was  rife;  the  debt  was  large.  The  prob- 
lem was,  how  to  make  out  of  such  unpromising  ma- 
terials a  prosperous  and  progressive  state. 

King  Otto  reigned  from  1833  to  1862.  He  was 
aided  in  his  government  by  many  Bavarians,  who 
filled  important  positions  in  the  army  and  the  civil 
service.  This  German  influence  was  a  primary  cause 
of  the  unpopularity  of  the  new  regime.  The  begin- 
nings were  made,  however,  in  the  construction  of 
a  healthy  national  Hfe.  Athens  was  made  the  capital, 
and  a  university  was  established  there.  A  police  sys- 
tem was  organized;  a  national  bank  created.  In  1844 
Otto  was  forced  to  consent  to  the  conversion  of  his 
absolute  monarchy  into  a  constitutional  one.  A  par- 
liament   with    two    chambers,    the    Deputies    being 


5242  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

chosen  by  universal   suffrage,  was  instituted.     The 
political  education  of  the  Greeks  then  began. 

From  the  reopening  of  the  Eastern  Question  by 
the  Crimean  War,  in  1854,  Greece  hoped  to  profit  by 
the  enlargement  of  her  boundaries.  The  Great  Pow- 
ers, however,  thought  otherwise,  and  forced  her  to 
remain  quiet.  Because  the  Government  did  not  defy 
Europe  and  insist  upon  her  rights,  which  would  have 
been  an  insane  proceeding,  it  became  very  unpopu- 
lar. For  this  reason,  as  well  as  for  despotic  tenden- 
cies, Otto  was  driven  from  power  in  1862  by  an  insur- 
rection, and  left  Greece,  never  to  return. 

A  new  king  was  secured  in  the  person  of  a  Danish 
prince,  second  son  of  the  then  King  of  Denmark.  The 
new  King,  George  I,  ruled  from  1863  to  1913.  That 
his  popularity  might  be  strengthened  at  the  very  out- 
set, England  in  1864  ceded  to  the  kingdom  the  Ionian 
Islands,  which  she  had  held  since  181 5.  This  was 
the  first  enlargement  of  the  kingdom  since  its  founda- 
tion. A  new  constitution  was  established  (1864) 
which  abolished  the  Senate  and  left  all  parliamentary 
power  in  the  hands  of  a  single  assembly,  the  Boule, 
elected  by  universal  suffrage,  and  consisting  of  192 
members,  with  a  four-year  term.  In  1881,  mainly 
through  the  exertions  of  England,  the  Sultan  was  in- 
duced to  cede  Thessaly  to  Greece,  and  thus  a  second 
enlargement  of  territory  occurred.  This  was  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  promise  of  the  Congress  of  Berlin 
'that  the  Greek  frontier  should  be  "  rectified." 

In  1897  Greece  declared  war  against  Turkey,  aim- 
ing at  the  annexation  of  Crete,  which  had  risen  in 
insurrection  against  Turkey.     Greece  was  easily  de- 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        243 

feated,  and  was  forced  to  cede  certain  parts  of  Thes- 
saly  to  Turkey  and  give  up  the  project  of  the  annexa- 
tion of  Crete.  After  long  negotiations  among  the 
powers,  the  latter  island  was  made  autonomous  under 
the  suzerainty  of  the  Sultan,  and  under  the  direct 
administration  of  Prince  George,  a  son  of  the  King 
of  Greece,  who  remained  in  power  until  1906.  A 
new  problem,  the  Cretan,  was  thus  pushed  into  the 
foreground  of  Greek  politics. 

The  financial  condition  of  Greece  was  not  sound. 
Her  debt  grew  enormously  owing  to  armaments,  the 
building  of  railroads,  and  the  digging  of  canals.  She, 
however,  increased  in  population  and  much  was  ac- 
complished in  the  direction  of  popular  education. 
Several  millions  of  Greeks  live  outside  the  Greek 
kingdom.  Those  inside  are  ambitious  to  have  them 
included. 

Serbian,  Bulgarian,  and  Greek  rivalries  met  in  the 
plains  of  Macedonia,  which  each  country  coveted  and 
which  was  inhabited  by  representatives  of  all  these 
peoples,  inextricably  intermingled.  The  problem  of 
Macedonia  was  further  complicated  by  the  rivalry  of 
the  great  powers  and  by  the  revolution  which  broke 
out  in  Turkey  itself  in  1908. 

Revolution  in  Turkey 

The  Eastern  Question  entered  upon  a  new  and 
startling  phase  in  the  summer  of  1908.  In  July  a 
swift,  sweeping,  and  pacific  revolution  occurred  in 
Turkey.  The  Young  Turks,  a  revolutionary,  con- 
stitutional party,  dominated  by  the  political  principles 


244  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  western  Europe,  seized  control  of  the  government, 
to  the  complete  surprise  of  the  diplomatists  and  pub- 
lic of  Europe.  This  party  consisted  of  those  who 
had  been  driven  from  Turkey  by  the  despotism  of 
the  Sultan,  Abdul  Hamid  II,  and  were  resident 
abroad,  chiefly  in  Paris,  and  of  those  who,  still 
living  in  Turkey,  dissembled  their  opinions  and  were 
able  to  escape  expulsion.  Its  members  desired  the 
overthrow  of  the  despotic,  corrupt,  and  inefficient 
government,  and  the  creation  in  its  place  of  a 
modern  liberal  system,  capable,  by  varied  and  thor- 
oughgoing reforms,  of  ranging  Turkey  among  pro- 
gressive nations.  Weaving  their  conspiracy  in  silence 
and  with  remarkable  adroitness,  they  succeeded 
in  drawing  into  it  the  Turkish  army,  hitherto  the 
solid  bulwark  of  the  Sultan's  power.  Then,  at  the 
ripe  moment,  the  army  refused  to  obey  the  Sultan's 
orders,  and  the  conspirators  demanded  peremptorily 
by  telegraph  that  the  Sultan  restore  the  Constitution 
of  1876,  a  constitution  which  had  been  granted  by 
the  Sultan  in  that  year  merely  to  enable  him  to 
weather  a  crisis,  and  which,  having  quickly  served 
the  purpose,  had  been  immediately  suspended  and 
had  remained  suspended  ever  since.  The  Sultan,  see- 
ing the  ominous  defection  of  the  army,  complied  at 
once  with  the  demands  of  the  Young  Turks,  "  re- 
stored," on  July  24,  the  Constitution  of  1876,  and 
ordered  elections  for  a  parliament  which  should  meet 
in  November.  Thus  an  odious  tyranny  was  instantly 
swept  away.  It  was  a  veritable  coup  d'etat,  this  time 
effected,  not  by  some  would-be  autocrat,  but  by  the 
army,  usually  the  chief  support  of  despotism  or  of  the 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  BALKAN  STATES        245 

authority  of  the  monarch,  now,  apparently,  the  main 
instrument  for  the  achievement  of  freedom  for  the 
democracy.  This  miHtary  revolution,  completely 
successful  and  almost  bloodless,  was  received  with 
incredible  enthusiasm  throughout  the  entire  breadth 
of  the  Sultan's  dominions.  Insurgents  and  soldiers, 
Mohammedans  and  Christians,  Greeks,  Serbs,  Bul- 
garians, Albanians,  Armenians,  Turks,  all  joined  in 
jubilant  celebrations  of  the  release  from  intolerable 
conditions.  The  most  astonishing  feature  was  the 
complete  subsidence  of  the  racial  and  religious 
hatreds  which  had  hitherto  torn  and  ravaged  the 
Empire  from  end  to  end.  The  revolution  proved 
to  be  the  most  fraternal  movement  in  modern  his- 
tory. Picturesque  and  memorable  were  the  scenes 
of  universal  reconciliation.  The  ease  and  sudden- 
ness with  which  this  astounding  change  was  effected 
proved  the  universality  of  the  detestation  of  the  reign 
and  methods  of  Abdul  Hamid  II  throughout  all  his 
provinces  and  among  all  his  peoples. 

Was  this  the  beginning  of  a  new  era  or  was  it  the 
beginning  of  the  end  of  the  Turkish  Empire?  It  will 
be  more  convenient  to  examine  this  question  a  little 
later. 


CHAPTER  XII 

RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN 

Russia,    a    century    ago,    was    the   largest    state   in 
Europe,   and  was  a   still  larger   Asiatic   empire.     It 
extended  in  unbroken  stretch  from  the  German  Con- 
federation to  the  Pacific  Ocean.     Its  population  was 
about   45,000,000.      Its    European    territory    covered 
about  2,000,000  square  miles.     It  was  inhabited  by 
a  variety   of  races,   but   the   principal   one   was   the 
Slavic.     Though  there  were  many  religions,  the  re- 
ligion of  the  court  and  of  more  than  two-thirds  of 
the   population   was   the   so-called   Greek   Orthodox 
form  of  Christianity.    Though  various  languages  were 
spoken,  Russian  was  the  chief  one.     The  Russians 
had   conquered  many  peoples  in  various   directions. 
A  considerable  part  of  the  former  Kingdom  of  Poland 
had  been  acquired  in  the  three  partitions  at  the  close 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  more  in  1815.     Here 
the  people   spoke  a  different  language,   the   Polish, 
and  adhered  to  a  different  religion,  the  Roman  Catho- 
Hc.     In  the  Baltic  provinces,  Esthonia,  Livonia,  and 
Courland,  the  upper  class  was  of  German  origin  and 
spoke  the  German  language,  while  the  mass  of  peas- 
ants were  Finns  and  Lithuanians,  speaking  different 
tongues.     All  the  inhabitants  were  Lutherans.     Fin- 
land had  recently  been  conquered  from  Sweden.    The 

246 


RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN       247 

languages  spoken  there  were  Swedish  and  Finnish, 
and  the  rehgion  was  Lutheran.  To  the  east  and  south 
were  peoples  of  Asiatic  origin,  many  of  them  Moham- 
medans in  rehgion.  There  were  in  certain  sections 
considerable  bodies  of  Jews. 

All  these  dissimilar  elements  were  bound  together 
by  their  allegiance  to  the  sovereign,  the  Czar,  a  mon- 
arch of  absolute,  unlimited  power. 

There  were  two  classes  of  society  in  Russia — the 
nobility  and  the  peasantry.  The  large  majority  of 
the  latter  were  serfs  of  the  Czar  and  the  nobility. 
The  nobility  numbered  about  140,000  families.  The 
nobles  secured  offices  in  the  army  and  the  civil  serv- 
ice. They  were  exempt  from  many  taxes,  and  en- 
joyed certain  monopolies.  Their  power  over  their 
serfs  was  extensive  and  despotic.  They  enforced 
obedience  to  their  orders  by  the  knout  and  by  banish- 
ment to  Siberia.  The  middle  class  of  well-to-do  and 
educated  people,  increasingly  important  in  the  other 
countries  of  Europe,  practically  did  not  exist  in  Rus- 
sia. Russia  was  an  agricultural  country,  whose  agri- 
culture, moreover,  was  very  primitive  and  inefficient. 
It  was  a  nation  of  serfs  and  of  peasants  little  better 
off  than  the  serfs.  This  class  was  wretched,  unedu- 
cated, indolent,  prone  to  drink  excessively.  In  the 
"  mir,"  or  village  community,  however,  it  possessed 
a  rudimentary  form  of  communism  and  limited  self- 
government. 

Over  this  vast  and  ill-equipped  nation  ruled  the 
Autocrat  of  All  the  Russias,  or  Czar,  an  absolute 
monarch,  whose  decisions,  expressed  in  the  form  of 
ukases  or  decrees,  were  the  law  of  the  land,  and  the 


248  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

autocrats  of  the  nineteenth  century  ruled,  in  the  main, 
as  had  the  autocrats  of  the  eighteenth,  making  no 
improvements,  or  only  fleeting  ones,  in  the  drab  and 
dull  regime,  which  weighed  heavily  and  hatefully  upon 
the  people,  barring  the  way  to  all  progress,  political 
or  economic  or  intellectual.  Poverty  and  ignorance 
characterized  the  masses,  improvidence  and  selfish- 
ness the  upper  classes,  incompetence  and  intolerance 
the  governing  authorities.  The  state  was  honey- 
combed with  abuses  which,  obviously,  must  be  re- 
formed if  Russia  was  to  prosper. 

Yet  decade  after  decade  the  old  complacent,  unin- 
telligent system  persisted.  Not  until  after  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century  was  any  breach  made  in 
this  citadel  of  reaction  and  oppression,  not  until  the 
reign  of  Alexander  II,  a  reign  that  lasted  from  1855 
to  1881,  a  reign  that  for  a  while  aroused  the  highest 
hopes,  so  liberal  and  energetic  did  it  bid  fair  to  be, 
so  rich  in  important  and  promising  achievement,  only, 
at  last,  unfortunately,  to  be  stricken  with  lassitude, 
and  to  end  in  tragedy.  That  reign,  however,  merits 
some  description,  because  of  the  light  it  throws  upon 
the  formidable  problems  of  Russia  and  the  later  his- 
tory of  that  country. 

Alexander  II  was,  unlike  his  immediate  predeces- 
sor and  unlike  most  of  the  Romanoff  rulers,  of  an 
open  mind,  desirous  of  ameliorating  the  conditions  of 
Russian  life.  His  courage  and  enlightenment  were 
shown  when,  shortly  after  coming  to  the  throne,  he 
attacked  the  great  national  evil,  serfdom. 

Nearly  all,  practically  nine-tenths,  of  the  arable  land 
of  Russia  was  owned  by  the  imperial  family  and  by 


RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN       249 

the  one  hundred  and  forty  thousand  famiUes  of  the 
nobiUty.     The  land  was,  therefore,  generally  held  in 
large  estates.     It  was  owned  by  a  small  minority;  it 
was  tilled  by  the  millions  of  Russia  who  were  serfs. 
It  was  easy  for  the  Emperor  to  free  the  crown  serfs, 
about  23,000,000,  since  no  one  could  question  the  right 
of  the  State  to  do  what  it  would  with  its  own.     Con- 
sequently the  crown  serfs  were  freed  by  a  series  of 
measures  covering  several  years,  1859  to  1866.     But 
the  Edict  of  Emancipation,  which  was  to  constitute 
Alexander  IPs  most  legitimate  title  to  fame,  concerned 
the  serfs  of  private  landowners,  the  nobles.     There 
were   about  23,000,000  of  these,   also.     The   private 
landlords  reserved  a  part  of  their  land  for  themselves, 
requiring  the  serfs  to  work  it  without  pay,  generally 
three  days  a  week.     The  rest  of  the  land  was  turned 
over  to  the  serfs,  who  cultivated  it  on  their  own  ac- 
count,  getting  therefrom  what   support   they   could, 
hardly  enough,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  for  sustenance. 
The  serfs  were  not  slaves  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
word.    They  could  not  be  sold  separately.     But  they 
were  attached  to  the  soil,  could  not  leave  it  without 
the  consent  of  the  owner,  and  passed,  if  he  sold  his 
estate,  to  the  new  owner.     The  landlord  otherwise 
had   practically   unlimited   authority   over   his    serfs. 
They  possessed  no  rights  which,  in  practice,  he  was 
bound  to  respect.     Such  a  system,  it  is  needless  to 
say,  ofifended  the  conscience  of  the  age. 

On  March  3,  1861,  the  Edict  of  Emancipation  was 
issued.  It  aboUshed  serfdom  throughout  the  Em- 
pire, and  it  won  for  Alexander  the  popular  title  of 
"  the  Czar  Liberator."    This  manifesto  did  not  merely 


250       FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

declare  the  serfs  free  men;  but  it  undertook  also  to 
solve  the  far  more  difficult  problem  of  the  ownership 
of  the  soil.  The  Czar  felt  that  merely  to  give  the 
serfs  freedom,  and  to  leave  all  the  land  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  nobles,  would  mean  the  creation  of  a  great 
proletariat  possessing  no  property,  therefore  likely 
to  fall  at  once  into  a  position  of  economic  depend- 
ence upon  the  nobles,  which  would  make  the  gift  of 
freedom  a  mere  mockery.  Moreover,  the  peasants 
were  firmly  convinced  that  they  were  the  rightful 
owners  of  the  lands  which  they  and  their  ancestors 
for  centuries  iiad  lived  upon  and  cultivated,  and  the 
fact  that  the  landlords  were  legally  the  owners  did 
not  alter  their  opinion.  To  give  them  freedom  with- 
out land,  leaving  that  with  the  nobles,  who  desired 
to  retain  it,  would  be  bitterly  resented  as  making 
their  condition  worse  than  ever.  On  the  other  hand, 
to  give  them  the  land  with  their  freedom  would  mean 
the  ruin  of  the  nobility  as  a  class,  considered  essen- 
tial to  the  State.  The  consequence  of  this  conflict  of 
interests  was  a  compromise,  satisfactory  to  neither 
party,  but  more  favorable  to  the  nobility  than  to  the 
peasants. 

The  lands  were  divided  into  two  parts.  The  land- 
lords were  to  keep  one;  the  other  was  to  go  to  the 
peasants,  either  individually,  or  collectively,  as  mem- 
bers of  the  village  community  or  fjiir  to  which  they 
belonged.  But  this  was  not  given  them  outright;  the 
peasant  and  the  village  must  pay  the  landlord  for 
the  land  assigned  them.  As  they  were  not  in  a  posi- 
tion to  do  this  the  State  was  to  advance  the  money, 
getting  it  back  from  the  peasant  and  the  mir  in  easy 


RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN       251 

installments.  These  installments  were  to  run  for 
forty-nine  years,  at  the  end  of  which  time  they  would 
cease  and  the  peasant  and  the  mir  would  then  own 
outright  the  lands  they  had  acquired. 

The  arrangement  was  a  great  disappointment  to 
the  peasants.  Their  newly  acquired  freedom  seemed 
a  doubtful  boon  in  the  light  of  this  method  of  divid- 
ing the  land.  Indeed,  they  could  not  see  that  they 
were  profiting  from  the  change.  Personal  liberty 
would  not  mean  much,  when  the  conditions  of  earn- 
ing a  livelihood  became  harder  rather  than  lighter. 
The  peasants  regarded  the  land  as  their  own.  But 
the  State  guaranteed  forever  a  part  to  the  landlords 
and  announced  that  the  peasants  must  pay  for  the  part 
assigned  to  themselves.  To  the  peasants  this  seemed 
sheer  robbery.  Moreover,  as  the  division  worked  out, 
they  found  that  they  had  less  land  for  their  own  use 
than  in  the  preemancipation  days,  and  that  they  had 
to  pay  the  landlords,  through  the  State,  more  than 
the  lands  which  they  did  receive  were  worth.  The 
Edict  of  Emancipation  did  not  therefore  bring  either 
peace  or  prosperity  to  the  peasants.  The  land  ques- 
tion became  steadily  more  acute  during  the  next  fifty 
years  owing  to  the  vast  increase  of  population  and 
the  consequent  greater  pressure  upon  the  land.  The 
Russian  peasant  lived  necessarily  upon  the  verge  of 
starvation. 

The  emancipation  of  the  serfs  is  seen,  therefore, 
not  to  have  been  an  unalloyed  boon.  Yet  Russia 
gained  morally  in  the  esteem  of  other  nations  by 
aboHshing  an  indefensible  wrong.  Theoretically,  at 
least,  every  man  was  free.     Moreover,  the  peasants. 


252  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

though  faring  ill,  yet  fared  better  than  had  the  peas- 
ants of  Prussia  and  Austria  at  the  time  of  their 
liberation. 

The  abolition  of  serfdom  was  the  greatest  act  of 
Alexander  II's  reign,  but  it  was  only  one  of  several 
liberal  measures  enacted  at  that  time  of  general  enthu- 
siasm. A  certain  amount  of  local  self-government 
was  granted,  reforms  in  the  judicial  system  were  car- 
ried through,  based  upon  a  study  of  the  systems  of 
Europe  and  the  United  States,  the  censorship  of  the 
press  was  relaxed,  educational  facilities  were  some- 
what developed. 

This  hopeful  era  of  reform  was,  however,  soon 
over,  and  a  period  of  reaction  began,  which  charac- 
terized the  latter  half  of  Alexander's  reign  and  ended 
in  his  assassination  in  1881.  There  were  several 
causes  for  this  change:  the  vacillating  character  of 
the  monarch  himself,  taking  fright  at  his  own  work; 
the  disappointment  felt  by  many  who  had  expected 
a  millennium,  but  who  found  it  not;  the  intense  dis- 
like of  the  privileged  and  conservative  classes  of  the 
measures  just  described. 

Just  at  this  time,  when  the  attitude  of  the  Emperor 
was  changing,  when  public  opinion  was  in  this  fluid, 
uncertain  state,  occurred  an  event  which  immensely 
strengthened  the  reactionary  forces,  a  new  insurrec- 
tion of  Poland.  The  Poles  had  attempted  to  gain 
their  independence  once  more  in  1831,  but  they  had 
been  easily  conquered  and  had  lost  what  few  liberties 
had  been  previously  given  them.  After  the  failure 
of  their  attempt  the  Poles  had  remained  quiet,  the 
quiet  of  despair.     For  a  generation  they  were  ruled 


RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN       253 

with  the  greatest  severity,  and  they  could  not  but 
see  the  impracticabihty  of  any  attempt  to  throw  off 
their  chains.  But  the  accession  of  Alexander  II 
aroused  hopes  of  better  conditions.  The  spirit  of 
nationalism  revived,  greatly  encouraged  by  the  suc- 
cess of  the  same  spirit  elsewhere.  The  Italians  had 
just  realized  their  aspiration,  the  creation  of  an  Ital- 
ian nation — not  solely  by  their  own  efforts,  but  by 
the  aid  of  foreign  nations.  Might  not  the  Poles  hope 
for  as  much?  Alexander  would  not  for  a  moment 
entertain  the  favorite  idea  of  the  Poles,  that  they 
should  be  independent.  He  emphatically  told  them 
that  such  a  notion  was  an  idle  dream,  that  they 
"  must  abandon  all  thoughts  of  independence,  now 
and  forever  impossible."  This  uncompromising  atti- 
tude, coupled  with  repressive  measures,  irritated  the 
Poles  to  the  point  of  desperation.  Finally  in  1863 
an  insurrection  broke  out,  aiming  at  independence. 
It  was  put  down  with  vigor  and  without  mercy.  The 
only  hope  for  the  Poles  lay  in  foreign  intervention, 
but  in  this  they  were  bitterly  disappointed.  England, 
France,  and  Austria  intervened  three  times  in  their 
behalf,  but  only  by  diplomatic  notes,  making  no  at- 
tempt to  give  emphasis  to  their  notes  by  a  show  of 
force.  Russia,  seeing  this,  and  supported  by  Prussia, 
treated  their  intervention  as  an  impertinence,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  wreak  her  vengeance.  It  was  a  fearful 
punishment  she  meted  out. 

A  process  of  Russification  was  now  vigorously  pur- 
sued. The  Russian  language  was  prescribed  for  the 
correspondence  of  the  officials  and  the  lectures  of  the 
university  professors,  and  the  use  of  Polish  was  for- 


254  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

bidden  in  churches,  schools,  theaters,  newspapers,  on 
business  signs,  in  fact,  everywhere. 

It  was  not  long  before  Alexander,  always  vacillat- 
ing, gave  up  all  dallying  with  reforms  and  relapsed 
into  the  traditional  repressive  ways  of  Russian  mon- 
archs.  This  reaction  aroused  intense  discontent  and 
engendered  a  movement  which  threatened  the  very 
existence  of  the  monarchy  itself,  namely,  Nihilism. 

The  Nihilists  belonged  to  the  intellectual  class  of 
Russia.  Reading  the  works  of  the  more  radical  phil- 
osophers and  scientists  of  western  Europe,  and  re- 
flecting upon  the  foundations  of  their  own  national 
institutions  and  conditions,  they  became  most  destruc- 
tive critics.  They  were  extreme  individualists,  who 
tested  every  human  institution  and  custom  by  reason. 
As  few  Russian  institutions  could  meet  such  a  test, 
the  Nihilists  condemned  them  all.  Theirs  was  an 
attitude,  first  of  intellectual  challenge,  then  of  revolt 
against  the  whole  established  order.  Shortly,  Social- 
ism was  grafted  upon  this  hatred  of  all  established 
institutions.  In  the  place  of  the  existing  society, 
which  must  be  swept  away,  a  new  society  was  to  be 
erected,  based  on  socialistic  principles.  Thus  the 
movement  entered  upon  a  new  phase.  It  ceased  to 
be  merely  critical  and  destructive.  It  became  con- 
structive as  well,  in  short,  a  political  party  with  a 
positive  programme,  a  party  very  small  but  resolute 
and  reckless,  willing  to  resort  to  any  means  to  achieve 
its  aims. 

This  party  now  determined  to  institute  an  educa- 
tional campaign  in  Russia,  realizing  that  nothing 
could  be  done  unless  the  millions  of  peasants  were 


RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN        255 

shaken  out  of  their  stolid  acquiescence  in  the  preva- 
lent order  which  weighed  so  heavily  upon  them. 
This  extraordinary  movement,  called  "  going  in 
among  the  people,"  became  very  active  after  1870. 
Young  men  and  women,  all  belonging  to  the  edu- 
cated class,  and  frequently  to  noble  families,  became 
day  laborers  and  peasants  in  order  to  mingle  with 
the  people,  to  arouse  them  to  action,  "  to  found," 
as  one  of  their  documents  said,  "  on  the  ruins  of  the 
present  social  organization  the  empire  of  the  working 
classes."  They  showed  the  self-sacrifice,  the  heroism 
of  the  missionary  laboring  under  the  most  discour- 
aging conditions.  It  is  estimated  that,  between  1872 
and  1878,  between  two  and  three  thousand  such  mis- 
sionaries were  active  in  this  propaganda.  Their  ef- 
forts, however,  were  not  rewarded  with  success.  The 
peasantry  remained  stolid,  if  not  contented.  More- 
over, this  campaign  of  education  and  persuasion  was 
broken  up  wherever  possible  by  the  ubiquitous  and 
lawless  police.  Many  were  imprisoned  or  exiled  to 
Siberia. 

A  pacific  propaganda  being  impossible,  one  of  vio- 
lence seemed  to  the  more  energetic  spirits  the  only 
alternative.  As  the  Government  held  the  people  in 
a  subjection  unworthy  of  human  beings,  as  it  em- 
ployed all  its  engines  of  power  against  everyone 
who  demanded  reform  of  any  kind,  as,  in  short,  it 
ruled  by  terror,  these  reformers  resolved  to  fight  it 
with  terror  as  the  only  method  possible.  The  "  Ter- 
rorists "  were  not  bloodthirsty  or  cruel  by  nature. 
They  simply  believed  that  no  progress  whatever  could 
be  made  in  raising  Russia  from  her  misery  except  by 


256  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

getting  rid  of  the  more  unscrupulous  officials.  They 
perfected  their  organization  and  entered  upon  a  period 
of  violence.  Numerous  attempts,  often  successful, 
were  made  to  assassinate  the  high  officials,  chiefs  of 
police  and  others  who  had  rendered  themselves  par- 
ticularly odious.  In  turn  many  of  the  revolutionists 
were  executed. 

Finally  the  terrorists  determined  to  kill  the  Czar 
as  the  only  way  of  overthrowing  the  whole  hated 
arbitrary  and  oppressive  system.  Several  attempts 
were  made.  In  April,  1879,  ^  schoolmaster,  Solovief, 
fired  five  shots  at  the  Emperor,  none  of  which  took 
effect.  In  December  of  the  same  year  a  train  on 
which  he  was  supposed  to  be  returning  from  the 
Crimea  was  wrecked,  just  at  it  reached  Moscow,  by 
a  mine  placed  between  the  rails.  Alexander  escaped 
only  because  he  had  reached  the  capital  secretly  on 
an  earlier  train.  The  next  attempt  (February,  1880), 
was  to  kill  him  while  at  dinner  in  the  Winter  Palace 
in  St.  Petersburg.  Dynamite  was  exploded,  ten  sol- 
diers were  killed  and  fifty-three  wounded  in  the  guard- 
room directly  overhead,  and  the  floor  of  the  dining- 
room  was  torn  up.  The  Czar  narrowly  escaped,  be- 
cause he  did  not  go  to  dinner  at  the  usual  hour. 

St.  Petersburg  was  by  this  time  thoroughly  ter- 
rorized. Alexander  now  appointed  Loris  Melikoff 
practically  dictator.  Melikoff  sought  to  inaugurate 
a  milder  regime.  He  released  hundreds  of  prisoners, 
and  in  many  cases  commuted  the  death  sentence.  He 
urged  the  Czar  to  grant  the  people  some  share  in 
the  government,  believing  that  this  would  kill  the 
Nihilist  movement,  which  was  a  violent  expression 


RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN       257 

of  the  discontent  of  the  nation  with  the  abuses  of  an 
arbitrary  and  lawless  system  of  government.  He 
urged  that  this  could  be  done  without  weakening  the 
principle  of  autocracy,  and  that  thus  Alexander  would 
win  back  the  popularity  he  had  enjoyed  during  his 
early  reforming  years.  After  much  hesitation  and 
mental  perturbation  the  Czar  ordered,  March  13, 
1881,  Melikoff's  scheme  to  be  pubUshed  in  the  official 
journal.  But  on  that  same  afternoon,  as  he  was 
returning  from  a  drive,  escorted  by  Cossacks,  a  bomb 
was  thrown  at  his  carriage.  The  carriage  was 
wrecked,  and  many  of  his  escorts  were  injured.  Alex- 
ander escaped  as  by  a  miracle,  but  a  second  bomb 
exploded  near  him  as  he  was  going  to  aid  the  in- 
jured. He  was  horribly  mangled,  and  died  within  an 
hour.  Thus  perished  the  Czar  Liberator.  At  the 
same  time  the  hopes  of  the  Liberals  perished  also. 
This  act  of  supreme  violence  did  not  intimidate  the 
successor  to  the  throne,  Alexander  III,  whose  entire 
reign  was  one  of  stern  repression. 

The  Reign  of  Alexander  III 

The  man  who  now  ascended  the  throne  of  Russia 
was  in  the  full  flush  of  magnificent  manhood.  Alex- 
ander III,  son  of  Alexander  II,  was  thirty-six  years 
of  age,  and  of  powerful  physique.  His  education  had 
been  chiefly  military.  He  was  a  man  of  firm  and  reso- 
lute rather  than  large  or  active  mind. 

It  shortly  became  clear  that  he  possessed  a  strong, 
inflexible  character,  that  he  was  a  thorough  believer 
in  absolutism,  and  was  determined  to  maintain  it  un- 


258  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

diminished.  He  assumed  an  attitude  of  defiant  hos- 
tility to  innovators  and  liberals.  His  reign,  which 
lasted  from  1881  to  1894,  was  one  of  reversion  to 
the  older  ideals  of  government  and  of  unqualified 
absolutism. 

The  terrorists  were  hunted  down,  and  their  at- 
tempts practically  ceased.  The  press  was  thoroughly 
gagged,  university  professors  and  students  were 
watched,  suspended,  exiled,  as  the  case  might  be. 
The  reforms  of  Alexander  H  were  in  part  undone, 
and  the  secret  police,  the  terrible  Third  Section,  was 
greatly  augmented.  Liberals  gave  up  all  hope  of 
any  improvement  during  this  reign,  and  waited  for 
better  days.  Under  Alexander  HI  began  the  inhu- 
man persecutions  of  the  Jews  which  have  been  so 
dark  a  feature  of  recent  Russian  history.  The  great 
Jewish  emigration  to  the  United  States  dates  from 
this  time. 

In  one  sphere  only  was  there  any  progress  in  this 
bleak,  stern  reign.  That  sphere  was  the  economic. 
An  industrial  revolution  began  then  which  was  car- 
ried much  further  under  its  successor.  Russia  had 
been  for  centuries  an  agricultural  country  whose  agri- 
culture, moreover,  was  of  the  primitive  type.  What- 
ever industries  existed  were  mainly  of  the  household 
kind.  Russia  was  one  of  the  poorest  countries  in 
the  world,  her  immense  resources  being  undeveloped. 
Under  the  system  of  protection  adopted  by  Alexander 
II,  and  continued  and  increased  by  Alexander  III, 
industries  of  a  modern  kind  began  to  grow  up.  A 
tremendous  impetus  was  given  to  this  development 
by  the  appointment  in  1892  as  Minister  of  Finance 


RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN        259 

and  Commerce  of  Sergius  de  Witte.  Witte  believed 
that  Russia,  the  largest  and  most  populous  country* 
in  Europe,  a  world  in  itself,  ought  to  be  self-sufficient, 
that  as  long  as  it  remained  chiefly  agricultural  it 
would  be  tributary  to  the  industrial  nations  for  manu- 
factured articles,  that  it  had  abundant  resources,  in- 
raw  material  and  in  labor,  to  enable  it  to  supply  its 
own  needs  if  they  were  but  developed.  He  believed 
that  this  development  could  be  brought  about  by  the 
adoption  of  a  policy  of  protection.  Was  not  the  aston- 
ishing industrial  growth  of  Germany  and  of  the  United 
States  convincing  proof  of  the  value  of  such  a  policy? 
By  adopting  it  for  Russia,  by  encouraging  foreigners 
to  invest  heavily  in  the  new  protected  industries,  by 
showing  them  that  their  rewards  would  inevitably 
be  large,  he  began  and  carried  far  the  economic  trans-' 
formation  of  his  country.  Immense  amounts  of  for- 
eign capital  poured  in  and  Russia  advanced  indus- 
trially in  the  closing  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century 
with  great  swiftness. 

One  thing  more  was  necessary.  Russia's  greatest 
lack  was  good  means  of  communication.  She  now 
undertook  to  supply  this  want  by  extensive  railway 
building.  For  some  years  before  Witte  assumed 
office,  Russia  was  building  less  than  400  miles  of  rail- 
way a  year;  from  that  time  on  for  the  rest  of  the 
decade,  she  built  nearly  1,400  miles  a  year.  The  most 
stupendous  of  these  undertakings  was  that  of  a  trunk 
line  connecting  Europe  with  the  Pacific  Ocean,  the 
great  Trans-Siberian  railroad.  For  this  Russia  bor- 
rowed vast  sums  of  money  in  western  Europe,  prin- 
cipally in  France.    Begun  in  1891,  the  road  was  for- 


26o  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

mally  opened  in  1902.  It  has  reduced  the  time  and 
cost  of  transportation  to  the  East  about  one-half.  In 
1912  Russia  possessed  over  46,000  miles  of  railway, 
nearly  34,000  of  which  were  owned  and  operated  by 
the  Government. 

This  tremendous  change  in  the  economic  life  of 
the  Empire  was  destined  to  have  momentous  con- 
sequences, some  of  which  were  quickly  apparent. 
Cities  grew  rapidly,  a  large  laboring  class  developed, 
and  labor  problems  of  the  kind  familiar  to  Western 
countries,  socialistic  theories,  spread  among  the  work- 
ing people;  also  a  new  middle  class  of  capitalists  and 
manufacturers  was  created  which  might  some  day 
demand  a  share  in  the  government.  These  new  forces 
would,  in  time,  threaten  the  old,  illiberal,  unprogres- 
sive  regime  which  had  so  long  kept  Russia  stagnant 
and  profoundly  unhappy.  That  the  old  system  was 
being  undermined  was  not,  however,  apparent,  and 
might  not  have  been  for  many  years  had  not  Russia, 
ten  years  after  Alexander's  death,  become  involved 
in  a  disastrous  and  humiliating  war  with  Japan. 

The  Reign  of  Nicholas  II 

Alexander  III  died  in  1894,  and  was  succeeded  by 
his  son,  Nicholas  II,  then  twenty-six  years  of  age. 
The  hope  was  general  that  a  milder  regime  might 
now  be  introduced.  This,  however,  was  not  to  be. 
For  ten  years  the  young  Czar  pursued  the  policy  of 
his  father  with  scarcely  a  variation  save  in  the  direc- 
tion of  greater  severity.  A  suggestion  that  repre- 
sentative institutions  might  be  granted  was  declared 


RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN        261 

"  a  senseless  dream."  The  government  was  not  one 
of  law,  but  of  arbitrary  power.  Its  instruments  were 
a  numerous  and  corrupt  body  of  state  officials  and 
a  ruthless,  active  police.  No  one  was  secure  against 
arrest,  imprisonment,  exile.  The  most  elementary 
personal  rights  were  lacking. 

The  professional  and  educated  man  was  in  an  intol- 
erable position.  If  a  professor  in  a  university,  he  was 
watched  by  the  police,  and  was  likely  to  be  removed 
at  any  moment  as  was  Professor  Milyoukov,  an  his- 
torian of  distinguished  attainments,  for  no  other  rea- 
son than  "  generally  noxious  tendencies."  If  an  edi- 
tor, his  position  was  even  more  precarious,  unless  he 
was  utterly  servile  to  the  authorities.  It  was  a  suf- 
focating atmosphere  for  any  man  of  the  slightest 
intellectual  independence,  living  in  the  ideas  of  the 
present  age.  The  censorship  grew  more  and  more 
rigorous,  and  included  such  books  as  Green's  History 
of  England  and  Bryce's  American  Commonwealth. 
Arbitrary  arrests  of  all  kinds  increased  from  year  to 
year  as  the  difficulty  of  thoroughly  bottling  up  Rus- 
sia increased.  Students  were  the  objects  of  special 
police  care,  as  it  was  the  young  and  ardent  and  edu- 
cated who  were  most  indignant  at  this  senseless  des- 
potism. Many  of  them  disappeared,  in  one  year  as 
many  as  a  fifth  of  those  in  the  University  of  Moscow, 
probably  sent  to  Siberia  or  to  prisons  in  Europe. 

A  government  of  this  kind  was  not  likely  to  err 
from  excess  of  sympathy  with  the  subject  nationali- 
ties, such  as  the  Poles  and  the  Finns.  In  Finland, 
indeed,  its  arbitrary  course  attained  its  climax.  Fin- 
land had  been  acquired  by  Russia  in   1809,  but  on 


262  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

liberal  terms.  It  was  not  incorporated  in  Russia,  but 
continued  a  Grand  Duchy,  with  the  Emperor  of  Rus- 
sia as  simply  Grand  Duke.  It  had  its  own  Parlia- 
ment, its  Fundamental  Laws  or  constitution,  to  which 
the  Grand  Duke  swore  fidelity.  These  Fundamental 
Laws  could  not  be  altered  or  interpreted  or  repealed 
except  with  the  consent  of  the  Diet  and  the  Grand 
Duke.  Finland  was  a  constitutional  state,  govern- 
ing itself,  connected  with  Russia  in  the  person  of  its 
sovereign.  It  had  its  own  army,  its  own  currency 
and  postal  system.  Under  this  liberal  regime  it  pros- 
pered greatly,  its  population  increasing  from  less  than 
a  million  to  nearly  three  millions  by  the  close  of  the 
century,  and  was,  according  to  an  historian  of  Russia, 
at  least  thirty  years  in  advance  of  that  country  in 
all  the  appliances  of  material  civilization.  The  sight 
of  this  country  enjoying  a  constitution  of  its  own 
and  a  separate  organization  was  an  offense  to  the 
men  controlling  Russia.  They  wished  to  sweep  away 
all  distinctions  between  the  various  parts  of  the  Em- 
peror's dominions,  to  unify,  to  Russify.  The  attack 
upon  the  liberties  of  the  Finns  began  under  Alexan- 
der III.  It  was  carried  much  further  by  Nicholas 
II,  who,  on  February  15,  1899,  issued  an  imperial 
manifesto  which  really  abrogated  the  constitution  of 
that  country.  The  Finns  began  a  stubborn  but  appar- 
ently hopeless  struggle  for  their  historic  rights  with 
the  autocrat  of  one  hundred  and  forty  million  men. 

Under  such  a  system  as  that  just  described  men 
could  be  terrorized  into  silence ;  they  could  not  be 
made  contented.  Disaffection  of  all  classes,  driven 
into  subterranean  channels,  onl^  increased,  awaiting 


RUSSIA  TO  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN        263 

the  time  for  explosion.  That  time  came  with  the  dis- 
astrous defeat  of  Russia  in  the  war  with  Japan  in 
1904-5,  a  landmark  in  contemporary  history. 

To  understand  recent  events  in  Russia  it  is  neces- 
sary to  trace  the  course  of  that  war,  whose  conse- 
quences have  been  profound,  and  to  show  the  signifi- 
cance of  that  conflict  we  must  interrupt  this  narrative 
of  Russian  history  in  order  to  give  an  account  of  the 
recent  evolution  of  Asia,  the  rise  of  the  so-called  Far 
Eastern  Question,  and  the  interaction  of  Occident  and 
Orient  upon  each  other. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
THE  FAR  EAST 

England^  France,  and  Russia  in  Asia 

Europe  has  not  only  taken  possession  of  Africa,  but 
she  has  taken  possession  of  large  parts  of  Asia, 
and  presses  with  increasing  force  upon  the  remainder. 
England  and  France  dominate  southern  Asia  by  their 
control,  the  former  of  India  and  Burma,  the  latter 
of  a  large  part  of  Indo-China.  Russia,  on  the  other 
hand,  dominates  the  north,  from  the  Ural  Mountains 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  As  far  as  geographical  extent 
is  concerned,  she  is  far  more  an  Asiatic  power  than 
a  European,  which,  indeed,  is  also  true  of  England 
and  of  France,  and  she  has  been  an  Asiatic  power 
much  longer  than  they,  for  she  began  her  expansion 
irto  Asia  before  the  Pilgrims  came  to  America.  For 
nearly  three  centuries  Russia  has  been  a  great  Asiatic 
state,  while  England  has  been  a  power  in  India  for 
only  half  that  time. 

It  was  not  until  the  nineteenth  century,  however, 
that  Russia  began  to  devote  serious  attention  to  Asia 
as  a  field  for  colonial  and  commercial  expansion.  Si- 
beria was  regarded  merely  as  a  convenient  prison  to 
which  to  send  her  disaffected  or  criminal  citizens. 
Events  in  Europe  have  caused  her  to  concentrate  her 

264 


THE  FAR  EAST  265 

attention  more  and  more  upon  her  Asiatic  develop- 
ment. She  has  sought  there  what  she  had  long  been 
seeking  in  Europe,  but  without  avail,  because  of  the 
opposition  she  encountered,  namely,  contact  with  the 
ocean,  free  outlet  to  the  world.  Russia's  coast  line, 
either  in  Europe  or  Asia,  had  no  harbors  free  from 
ice  the  year  round.  Blocked  decisively  and  repeatedly 
from  obtaining  such  in  Europe  at  the  expense  of 
Turkey,  she  has  sought  them  in  Eastern  Asia.  This 
ambition  explains  her  Asiatic  policies.  In  1858  she 
acquired  from  China  the  whole  northern  bank  of  the 
Amur  and  two  years  later  more  territory  farther 
south,  the  Maritime  Province,  at  the  southern  point 
of  which  she  founded  as  a  naval  base  Vladivostok, 
which  means  the  Dominator  of  the  East.  But  Vladi- 
vostok was  not  ice-free  in  winter.  Russia  still  lacked 
her  longed-for  outlet. 

China 

Between  Russian  Asia  on  the  north,  and  British  and 
French  Asia  on  the  south,  lies  the  oldest  nation  of 
the  world,  China,  and  one  more  extensive  than  Eu- 
rope and  probably  more  populous,  with  more  than 
400,000,000  inhabitants.  It  is  a  land  of  great  navigable 
rivers,  of  vast  agricultural  areas,  and  of  mines  rich 
in  coal  and  metals,  as  yet  largely  undeveloped.  The 
Chinese  were  a  highly  civilized  people  long  before  the 
Europeans  were.  They  preceded  the  latter  by  cen- 
turies in  the  use  of  the  compass,  powder,  porcelain, 
paper.  As  early  as  the  sixth  century  of  our  era  they 
knew  the  art  of  printing  from  movable  wooden  blocks. 
They  have  long  been  famous  for  their  work  in  bronze, 


266  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

in  wood,  in  lacquer,  for  the  marvels  of  their  silk 
manufacture.  As  a  people  laborious  and  intelHgent, 
they  have  always  been  devoted  to  the  peaceful  pur- 
suits of  industry,  and  have  scorned  the  arts  of  war. 

China  had  always  lived  a  Hfe  of  isolation,  despising 
the  outside  world.  She  had  no  diplomatic  represen- 
tatives in  any  foreign  country,  nor  were  any  foreign 
ambassadors  resident  in  Peking.  Foreigners  were 
permitted  to  trade  in  only  one  Chinese  port,  Canton, 
and  even  there  only  under  vexatious  and  humiHating 
conditions. 

It  was  not  Ukely  that  a  policy  of  such  isolation 
could  be  permanently  maintained  in  the  modern  age, 
and  as  the  nineteenth  century  progressed  it  was  grad- 
ually shattered.     The  Chinese  desired  nothing  better 
than  to  be  left  alone.     But  this  was  not  to  be.     By  a 
long  series  of  aggressions  extending  to  our  own  day 
various  European  powers  have  forced  China  to  enter 
into  relations  with  them,  to  make  concessions  of  ter- 
ritory, of  trading  privileges,  of  diplomatic  intercourse. 
In  this  story  of  European  aggression  the  Opium  War 
waged  by  Great  Britain  against  China  from  1840  to 
1842  was  decisive,  as  showing  how  easy  it  was  to  con- 
quer China.    The  Chinese  had  forbidden  the  importa- 
tion of  opium,  as  injurious  to  their  people.     But  the 
British  did  not  wish  to  give  up  a  trade  in  which  the 
profits  were  enormous.     The  war,  the  first  between 
China  and  a  European  power,  lasted  two  years  and 
ended  in  the  victory  of  Great  Britain.     The  conse- 
quences, in  forcing  the  doors  of  China  open  to  Euro- 
pean influence,  were  important.     By  the  Treaty  of 
Nanking,  1842,  she  was  forced  to  pay  a  large  indem- 


THE  FAR  EAST  267 

nity,  to  open  to  British  trade  four  ports  in  addition 
to  Canton,  and  to  cede  the  island  of  Hong  Kong, 
near  Canton,  to  England  outright.  Hong  Kong  has 
since  become  one  of  the  most  important  naval  and 
commercial  stations  of  the  British  Empire. 

Other  powers  now  proceeded  to  take  advantage  of 
the  British  success.  The  United  States  sent  Caleb 
Cushing  to  make  a  commercial  treaty  with  China  in 
1844,  and  before  long  France,  Belgium,  Holland,  Prus- 
sia, and  Portugal  established  trade  centers  at  the  five 
treaty  ports.  The  number  of  such  ports  has  since 
been  increased  to  over  forty.  China  was  obliged  to 
abandon  her  policy  of  isolation  and  to  send  and  re- 
ceive ambassadors. 

A  period  of  critical  importance  in  China's  relations 
with  Europe  began  in  the  last  decade  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  as  a  result  of  a  war  with  Japan  in 
1894-5.  To  appreciate  this  war  it  is  necessary  to  give 
some  account  of  the  previous  evolution  of  Japan. 

Japan 

The  rise  of  Japan  as  the  most  forceful  state  in  the 
Orient  is  a  chapter  of  very  recent  history,  of  absorb- 
ing interest,  and  of  great  significance  to  the  present 
age.  Accomplished  in  the  last  third  of  the  nineteenth 
century  it  has  already  profoundly  altered  the  condi- 
tions of  international  politics,  and  seems  likely  to  be  a 
factor  of  increasing  moment  in  the  future  evolution 
of  the  world. 

Japan  is  an  archipelago,  consisting  of  several  large 
islands  and  about   four   thousand   smaller  ones.      It 


268  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

covered,  in  1894,  an  area  of  147,000  square  miles,  an 
area  smaller  than  that  of  California.  The  main  is- 
lands form  a  crescent,  the  northern  point  being  op- 
posite Siberia,  the  southern  turning  in  toward  Korea. 
Between  it  and  Asia  is  the  Sea  of  Japan.  The  coun- 
try is  very  mountainous,  its  most  famous  peak,  Fuji- 
yama, rising  to  a  height  of  12,000  feet.  Of  volcanic 
origin,  numerous  craters  are  still  active.  Earth- 
quakes are  not  uncommon,  and  have  determined  the 
character  of  domestic  architecture.  The  coast  line  is 
much  indented,  and  there  are  many  good  harbors. 
The  Japanese  call  their  country  Nippon,  or  the  Land 
of  the  Rising  Sun.  Only  about  one-sixth  of  the  land 
is  under  cultivation,  owing  to  its  mountainous  char- 
acter, and  owing  to  the  prevalent  mode  of  farming. 
Yet  into  this  small  area  is  crowded  a  population  of 
fifty-six  millions,  which  is  larger  than  that  of  Great 
Britain  or  France.  It  is  no  occasion  for  surprise  that 
the  Japanese  have  desired  territorial  expansion. 

The  people  of  Japan  derived  the  beginnings  of  their 
civilization  from  China,  but  in  many  respects  they 
differed  greatly  from  the  Chinese.  The  virtues  of 
the  soldier  were  held  in  high  esteem.  Patriotism  was 
a  passion,  and  with  it  went  the  spirit  of  unquestion- 
ing self-sacrifice.  "  Thou  shalt  honor  the  gods  and 
love  thy  country,"  was  a  command  of  the  Shinto 
religion,  and  was  universally  obeyed.  An  art-loving 
and  pleasure-loving  people,  the  Japanese  possessed 
active  minds  and  a  surprising  power  of  assimilation 
which  they  were  to  show  on  a  national  and  momen- 
tous scale. 

The  Japanese  had  followed  the  same  policy  of  seclu- 


THE  FAR  EAST  269 

sion  as  had  the  Chinese.  Japan  had  for  centuries  been 
almost  hermetically  sealed  against  the  outside  world. 
On  the  peninsula  of  Deshima  there  was  a  single  trad- 
ing station  which  carried  on  a  slight  commerce  with 
the  Dutch.  This  was  Japan's  sole  point  of  contact 
with  the  outside  world  for  over  two  centuries. 

This  unnatural  seclusion  was  rudely  disturbed  by 
the  arrival  in  Japanese  waters  of  an  American  fleet 
under  Commodore  Perry  in  1853,  sent  out  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States.  American  sailors, 
engaged  in  the  whale  fisheries  in  the  Pacific,  were 
now  and  then  wrecked  on  the  coasts  of  Japan,  where 
they  generally  received  cruel  treatment.  Perry  was 
instructed  to  demand  of  the  ruler  of  Japan  protection 
for  American  sailors  and  property  thus  wrecked,  and 
permission  for  American  ships  to  put  into  one  or  more 
Japanese  ports,  in  order  to  obtain  necessary  suppUes 
and  to  dispose  of  their  cargoes.  He  presented  these 
demands  to  the  government.  He  announced  further 
that  if  his  requests  were  refused,  he  would  open  hos- 
tilities. The  government  granted  certain  immediate 
demands,  but  insisted  that  the  general  question  of 
opening  relations  with  a  foreign  state  required  care- 
ful consideration.  Perry  consented  to  allow  this  dis- 
cussion and  sailed  away,  stating  that  he  would  return 
the  following  year  for  the  final  answer.  The  discus- 
sion of  the  general  question  on  the  part  of  the  gov- 
erning classes  was  very  earnest.  Some  believed  in 
maintaining  the  old  policy  of  complete  exclusion  of 
foreigners.  Others,  however,  believed  this  impossible, 
owing  to  the  manifest  military  superiority  of  the  for- 
eigners.   They  thought  it  well  to  enter  into  relations 


270  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

with  them  in  order  to  learn  the  secret  of  that  super- 
iority, and  then  to  appropriate  it  for  Japan.  They  be- 
lieved this  the  only  way  to  insure,  in  the  long  run, 
the  independence  and  power  of  their  country.  This 
opinion  finally  prevailed,  and  when  Perry  reappeared 
a  treaty  was  made  with  him  (1854)  by  which  two 
ports  were  opened  to  American  ships.  This  was  a 
mere  beginning,  but  the  important  fact  was  that 
Japan  had,  after  two  centuries  of  seclusion,  entered 
into  relations  with  a  foreign  state.  Later  other  and 
more  liberal  treaties  were  concluded  with  the  United 
States  and  with  other  countries. 

The  reaction  of  these  events  upon  the  internal 
evolution  of  Japan  was  remarkable.  They  produced 
a  very  critical  situation,  and  precipitated  a  civil  war, 
the  outcome  of  which  discussion  and  conflict  was 
the  triumph  of  the  party  that  believed  in  change. 
After  1868  Japan  revolutionized  her  political  and 
social  institutions  in  a  few  years,  adopted  with  ardor 
the  material  and  scientific  civilization  of  the  West, 
made  herself  in  these  respects  a  European  state,  and 
entered  as  a  result  upon  an  international  career,  which 
has  already  profoundly  modified  the  world,  and  is 
likely  to  be  a  constant  and  an  increasing  factor  in  the 
future  development  of  the  East.  So  complete,  so 
rapid,  so  hearty  an  appropriation  of  an  alien  civiliza- 
tion, a  civilization  against  which  every  precaution  of 
exclusion  had  for  centuries  been  taken,  is  a  change 
unique  in  the  history  of  the  world,  and  notable  for 
the  audacity  and  the  intelHgence  displayed.  The  en- 
trance upon  this  course  was  a  direct  result  of  Perry's 
expedition.     The  Japanese  revolution  will  always  re- 


THE  FAR  EAST  271 

main  an  astounding  story.  Once  begun  it  proceeded 
with  great  rapidity.  In  place  of  the  former  miHtary 
class  arose  an  army  based  on  European  models.  Mili- 
tary service  was  declared  universal  and  obligatory  in 
1872.  The  German  system,  which  has  revolutionized 
Europe,  began  to  revolutionize  Asia. 

The  first  railroad  was  begun  in  1870  between  Tokio 
and  Yokohama.  Thirty  years  later  there  were  over 
3,600  miles  in  operation.  To-day  there  are  7,600. 
The  educational  methods  of  the  West  were  also  intro- 
duced. A  university  was  established  at  Tokio,  and 
later  another  at  Kioto.  Professors  from  abroad  were 
induced  to  accept  important  positions  in  them.  Stu- 
dents showed  great  enthusiasm  in  pursuing  the  new 
learning.  Public  schools  were  created  rapidly,  and 
by  1883  about  3,300,000  pupils  were  receiving  educa- 
tion. In  1873  the  European  calendar  was  adopted. 
The  codes  of  law  were  thoroughly  remodeled  after  an 
exhaustive  study  of  European  systems.  Finally  a 
constitution  was  granted  in  1889,  after  eight  years 
of  careful  elaboration  and  study  of  foreign  models. 
It  established  a  parliament  of  two  chambers,  a  House 
of  Peers  (the  so-called  "  Elder  Statesmen  ")  and  a 
House  of  Representatives.  The  vote  was  given  to 
men  of  twenty-five  years  or  older  who  paid  a  certain 
property  tax.  The  constitution  reserved  very  large 
powers  for  the  monarch.  Parliament  met  for  the  first 
time  in  1890.  The  test  of  reformed  Japan  came  in 
the  last  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century  and  the  first 
of  the  twentieth,  and  proved  the  solidity  of  this  amaz- 
ing achievement.  During  those  years  she  fought  and 
defeated  two  powers  apparently  much  stronger  than 


272  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

herself,  China  and  Russia,  and  took  her  place  as  an 
equal  in  the  family  of  nations. 


Chino-Japanese  War  and  its  Consequences 

A  war  in  which  the  efficiency  of  the  transformed 
Japan  was  clearly  established  broke  out  with  China 
in  1894.  The  immediate  cause  was  the  relations  of 
the  two  powers  to  Korea.  Korea  was  a  kingdom, 
but  both  China  and  Japan  claimed  suzerainty  over 
it.  Japan  had  an  interest  in  extending  her  claims,  as 
she  desired  larger  markets  for  her  products.  Friction 
/ivas  frequent  between  the  two  countries  concerning 

V  their  rights  in  Korea,  as  a  consequence  of  which 
Japan  began  a  war  in  which,  with  her  modern  army, 
she  was  easily  victorious  over  her  giant  neighbor, 
whose  armies  fought  in  the  old  Asiatic  style  with  a 
traditional  Asiatic  equipment.  The  Japanese  drove 
the  Chinese  out  of  Korea,  invaded  Manchuria,  where 
they  seized  the  fortress  of  Port  Arthur,  the  strongest 
position  in  eastern  Asia,  occupied  the  Liao-tung  pen- 
insula on  which  that  fortress  is  located,  and  prepared 
to  advance  toward  Peking.  The  Chinese,  alarmed 
for  their  capital,  agreed  to  make  peace,  and  signed 

v/the  Treaty  of  Shimonoseki  (April  17,  1895),  by  which 
they  ceded  Port  Arthur,  the  Liao-tung  peninsula,  the 
Island  of  Formosa,  and  the  Pescadores  Islands  to 
Japan,  also  agreeing  to  pay  a  large  war  indemnity 
of  two  hundred  million  taels  (about  $175,000,000). 
China  recognized  the  complete  independence  of 
Korea. 

But  in  the  hour  of  her  triumph  Japan  was  thwarted 


THE  FAR  EAST  273 

by  a  European  Intervention,  and  deprived  of  the  fruits 
of  her  victory.  Russia  nov^  entered  in  decisive  fashion 
upon  a  scene  where  she  was  to  play  a  prominent  part 
for  the  next  ten  years.  She  soon  showed  that  she 
entertained  plans  directly  opposed  to  those  of  the 
Japanese.  She  induced  France  and  GermaAy  to  join 
her  in  forcing  them  to  'give'up  the  most  important 
rewards  of  their  victory,  in  ordering  them  to  surrender 
the  Liao-tung  peninsula  on  the  ground  that  the  pos-  ] 
session  of  Port  Arthur  threatened  the  independence  of  j 
Peking  and  would  be  a  perpetual  menace  "to  the; 
peace  of  the  Far  East."  This  was  a  bitter  blow  to  \^ 
the  Japanese.  Recognizing,  however,  that  it  would 
be  folly  to  oppose  the  three  great  military  powers  of 
Europe,  they  yielded,  restored  Port  Arthur  and  the 
peninsula  to  China,  and  withdrew  ^rom  the  mainland, 
indignant  at  the  action  of  the  powers,  and  resolved 
to  increase  their  army  and  navy  and  develop  their 
resources,  believing  that  their  enemy  in  Asia  was 
Russia,  with  whom  a  day  of  reckoning  must  come 
sooner  or  later,  and  confirmed  in  this  belief  by  events 
that  crowded  thick  and  fast  in  the  next  few  years. 

The  insincerity  of  the  powers  in  talking  about  the' 
integrity  of   China   and   the  peace   of  the   East  was 
not  long-  in  manifesting  itself.  >' 

In  1897  two  German  missionaries  were  murdered  '^ 
in  th«_^'ovince  of  Shantung.  The  German  Emperor 
immediately  sent  a  fleet  to  demand  redress.  As  a  re- 
sult Germany  secured  (March  5,  1898),  from  China 
a  ninety-nine  year  lease  of  the  finV-harbor  of  Kiau- 
chau,  with  a  considerable  area  round  about,  and  ex- 
tensive   commercial    and    financial    privileges    in    the 


274  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE  ' 

whole  province  of  Shantung.  Indeed,  that  province 
became  a  German  "  sphere  of  influence." 
/  This  action  encouraged  Russia  to  make  further  de- 
V/mands.  She  acquired  from  China  (March  27,  1898) 
a  lease  for  twenty-five  years  of  Port  Arthur,  the 
strongest  position  in  eastern  Asia,  which,  as  she  had 
stated  to  Japan  in  1895,  enabled  the  possessor  to 
threaten  Peking  and  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
Orient.  France  and  England  also  each  acquired  a 
port  on  similar  terms  of  lease.  The  powers  also 
forced  China  to  open  a  dozen  new  ports  to  the  trade 
of  the  world,  and  to  grant  extensive  rights  to  estab- 
lish factories  and  build  railways  and  develop  mines. 

It  seemed,  in  the,  summer  of  1898,  that  China  was 
about  to  undergo  th^fate  of  Africa,  that  it  was  to  be 
carved  up  among  the  various  powers.  This  tendency 
was  checked  by  the  rise  of  a  bitterly  anti-foreign 
party,  occasioned  by  these  acts  of  aggression,  and 
culminating  in  the  Boxer  insurrections  of  1900. 
These  grew  rapidly,  and  spread  over  northern  China. 
Their  aim  was  to  drive  the  "  foreign  devils  into  the 
sea."  Scores  of  missionaries  and  their  families  were 
killed,  and  hundreds  of  Chinese  converts  murdered  in 
cold  blood.  Finally,  the  Legations  of  the  various  pow- 
ers in  Peking  were  besieged,  and  for  weeks  Europe 
and  America  feared  that  all  the  foreigners  there  would 
be  massacred.  In  the  presence  of  this  common  dan- 
ger the  powers  were  obliged  to  drop  their  jealousies 
and  rivalries,  and  send  a  relief  expedition,  consisting 
of  troops  from  Japan,  Russia,  Germany,  France,  Great 
Britain,  and  the  United  States.  The  Legations  were 
rescued,  just  as  their  resources  were   exhausted  by 


THE  FAR  EAST  275 

the  siege  of  two  months  (June  13-August  14,  1900). 
The  international  army  suppressed  the  Boxer  move- 
ment after  a  short  campaign,  forced  the  Chinese  to 
pay  a  large  indemnity,  and  to  punish  the  ringleaders. 
In  forming  this  international  army,  the  powers  had 
agreed  not  to  acquire  territory,  and  at  the  close  of 
the  war  they  guaranteed  the  integrity  of  China. 
Whether  this  would  mean  anything  remained  to  be 
seen. 

The  integrity  of  China  had  been  invoked  in  1895 
and  ignored  in  the  years  following.  Russia,  France, 
and  Germany  had  appealed  to  it  as  a  reason  for  de- 
manding the  evacuation  of  Port  Arthur  by  the  Jap- 
anese in  1895.  Soon  afterward  Germany  had  virtually 
annexed  a  port  and  a  province  of  China,  and  France 
had  also  acquired  a  port  in  the  south.  Then  came 
the  most  decisive  act,  the  securing  of  Port  Arthur 
by  Russia.  This  caused  a  wave  of  indignation  to 
sweep  over  Japan,  and  the  people  of  that  country 
were  with  difficulty  kept  in  check  by  the  prudence 
of  their  statesmen.  The  acquisition  of  Port  Arthur 
by  Russia  meant  that  now  she  had  a  harbor  ice-free 
the  year  round.  That  Russia  did  not  look  upon  her 
possession  as  merely  a  short  lease,  but  as  a  permanent 
one,  was  unmistakably  shown  by  her  conduct.  She 
constructed  a  railroad  south  from  Harbin,  connect- 
ing with  the  Trans-Siberian.  She  threw  thousands  of 
troops  into  Manchuria;  she  set  about  immensely 
strengthening  Port  Arthur  as  a  fortress,  and  a  con- 
siderable fleet  was  stationed  there.  To  the  Japanese 
all  this  seemed  to  prove  that  she  purposed  ultimately 
to  annex  the  immense  province  of  Manchuria,  and 


276  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

later  probably  Korea,  which  would  give  her  a  larger 
number  of  ice-free  harbors  and  place  her  in  a  dom- 
inant position  on  the  Pacific,  menacing,  the  Japanese 
felt,  the  very  existence  of  Japan.  Moreover,  this 
would  absolutely  cut  off  all  chance  of  possible  Jap- 
anese expansion  in  these  directions,  and  of  the  acquisi- 
tion of  their  markets  for  Japanese  industries.  The 
ambitions  of  the  two  powers  to  dominate  the  East 
clashed,  and,  in  addition,  to  Japan  the  matter  seemed 
to  involve  her  permanent  safety,  even  in  her  island 
empire. 

Russo-Japanese  War  and  its  Consequences 

Japan's  prestige  at  this  time  was  greatly  increased 
7  by  a  treaty  concluded  with  England  in  1902  estab- 
lishing a  defensive  alliance,  each  power  promising  the 
other  aid  in  certain  contingencies.  In  case  either 
should  become  involved  in  war  the  other  would  re- 
main neutral,  but  would  abandon  its  neutrality  and 
come  to  the  assistance  of  its  ally  if  another  power 
should  join  the  enemy.  This  meant  that  if  France 
or  Germany  should  aid  Russia  in  a  war  with  Japan, 
then  England  would  aid  Japan.  In  a  war  between 
Russia  and  Japan  alone  England  would  be  neutral. 
The  treaty  was  therefore  of  great  practical  import- 
ance to  Japan,  and  it  also  increased  her  prestige.  For 
the  first  time  in  history,  an  Asiatic  power  had  entered 
into  an  alliance  with  a  European  power  on  a  plane  of 
entire  equality.  Japan  had  entered  the  family  of 
nations,  and  it  was  remarkable  evidence  of  her  im- 
portance that  Great  Britain  saw  advantage  in  an  alli- 
ance with  her.     Meanwhile  Russia  had  a  large  army 


THE  FAR  EAST  277 

in  Manchuria  and  a  leasehold  of  the  strong  fortress 
and  naval  base  of  Port  Arthur.  She  had  definitely 
promised  to  withdraw  from  Manchuria  when  order 
should  be  restored,  but  she  declined  to  make  the 
statement  more  explicit.  Her  military  preparations 
increasing  all  the  while,  the  Japanese  demanded  of 
her  the  date  at  which  she  intended  to  withdraw  her 
troops  from  Manchuria,  order  having  apparently  been 
restored.  Negotiations  between  the  two  powers 
dragged  on  from  August,  1903,  to  February,  1904. 
Japan,  believing  that  Russia  was  merely  trying  to 
gain  time  to  tighten  her  grip  on  Manchuria  by  elabo- 
rate and  intentional  delay  and  evasion,  and  to  pro- 
long the  discussion  until  she  had  sufficient  troops  in 
the  province  to  be  able  to  throw  aside  the  mask, 
suddenly  broke  off  diplomatic  relations  and  com- 
menced hostilities.  On  the  night  of  the  8th-9th  of 
February,  1904,  the  Japanese  torpedoed  a  part  of  the 
Russian  fleet  before  Port  Arthur  and  threw  their 
armies  into  Korea. 

The  Russo-Japanese  War,  thus  begun,  lasted  from 
February,  1904,  to  September,  1905.  It  was  fought 
on  both  land  and  sea.  Russia  had  two  fleets  in  Asiatic 
waters,  one  at  Port  Arthur  and  one  at  Vladivostok. 
Her  land  connection  with  eastern  Asia  was  by  the 
long  single  track  of  the  Trans-Siberian  railway.  Japan 
succeeded  in  bottling  the  Port  Arthur  fleet  at  the 
very  outset  of  the  war.  Controlling  the  Asiatic  waters 
she  was  able  to  transport  armies  and  munitions  to 
the  scene  of  the  land  warfare  with  only  slight  losses 
at  the  hands  of  the  Vladivostok  fleet.  One  army 
drove    the   Russians   out   of   Korea,   back   from   the 


278  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Yalu.  Another  under  General  Oku  landed  on  the 
Liaotung  peninsula  and  cut  off  the  connections  of 
Port  Arthur  with  Russia.  It  attempted  to  take  Port 
Arthur  by  assault,  but  was  unable  to  carry  it,  and 
finally  began  a  siege.  This  siege  was  conducted  by 
General  Nogi,  General  Oku  being  engaged  in  driv- 
ing the  Russians  back  upon  Mukden.  The  Russian 
General  Kuropatkin  marched  south  from  Mukden  to 
relieve  Port  Arthur.  South  of  Mukden  great  battles 
occurred,  that  of  Liao-yang,  engaging  probably  half 
a  million  men  and  lasting  several  days,  resulting  in 
a  Victory  of  the  Japanese,  who  entered  Liao-yang 
September  4,  1904.  Their  objective  now  was  Muk- 
den. Meanwhile,  in  August,  the  Japanese  had  de- 
feated disastrously  both  the  Port  Arthur  and  Vladi- 
vostok fleets,  eliminating  them  from  the  war.  The 
terrific  bombardment  of  Port  Arthur  continued  until 
that  fortress  surrendered  after  a  siege  of  ten  months, 
costing  the  Japanese  60,000  in  killed  and  wounded 
(January  i,  1905).  The  army  which  had  conducted 
this  siege  was  now  able  to  march  northward  to  coop- 
erate with  General  Oku  around  Mukden.  There  sev- 
eral battles  w^ere  fought,  the  greatest  since  the 
Franco-German  war  of  1870,  lasting  in  each  case  sev- 
eral days.  The  last,  at  Mukden  (March  6-10,  1905), 
cost  both  armies  120,000  men  killed  and  wounded  in 
four  days'  fighting.  The  Russians  were  defeated  and 
evacuated  Mukden,  leaving  40,000  prisoners  in  the 
hands  of  the  Japanese. 

Another  incident  of  the  war  was  the  sending  out 
from  Russia  of  a  new  fleet  under  Admiral  Rodjest- 
vensky,  which,  after  a  long  voyage  around  the  Cape 


X 


THE  FAR  EAST  279 

of  Good  Hope,  was  attacked  by  Admiral  Togo  as  it 
entered  the  Sea  of  Japan  and  annihilated  in  the  great 
naval  battle  of  the  Straits  of  Tsushima,  May  27,  1905. 

The  two  powers  finally  consented,  at  the  suggestion 
of  President  Roosevelt,  to  send  delegates  to  Ports- 
mouth, New  Hampshire,  to  see  if  the  war  could  be 
brought  to  a  close.     The  result  was  the  signing  oi        /       ^ 
the  Treaty  of  Portsmouth,  September  5,  1905.     The    /   a  f) 
war  between  Japan  and  Russia  had  been  fought  in         \  « 
lands  belonging  to  neither  power,  in  Korea,  and  prin- 
cipally in  Manchuria,  a  province  of  China,  yet  Korea 
and  China  took  no  part  in  the  war,  were  passive  spec- 
tators, powerless  to  preserve  the  neutrality  of  their 
soil  or  their  independent  sovereignty.     The  war  had 
cost  each  nation  about  a  billion   dollars  and  about 
200,000  in  killed  and  wounded. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Portsmouth  Russia  recognized 
Japan's  paramount  interests  in  Korea,  which  country,-'" 
however,  was  to  remain  independent.  Both  the  Rus- 
sians and  the  Japanese  were  to  evacuate  Manchuria. 
Russia  transferred  to  Japan  her  lease  of  Port  Arthur 
and  the  Liao-tung  peninsula,  and  ceded  the  southern 
half  of  the  island  of  Saghalin, 

Japan  thus  stood  foFth  the  dominant  power  of  the 
Orient.  She  had  expanded  in  ten  years  by  the  annexa- 
tion of  Formosa  and  Saghalin.  She  has  not  regarded 
Korea  as  independent,  but  since  the  close  of  the  war 
has  annexed  her  (1910).  She  possesses  Port  Arthur, 
and  her  position  in  Manchuria  is  one  which  has  given 
rise  to  much  diplomatic  discussion.  She  has  an  army 
of  600,000  men,  equipped  with  all  the  most  modern 
appliances  of  destruction,  a  navy  about  the  size  of 


28o  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

that  of  France,  flourishing  industries,  and  flourishing' 
commerce.  The  drain  upon  her  resources  during  the 
period  just  passed  had  been  tremendous,  and,  appre- 
ciating the  need  of  many  years  of  quiet  recuperation 
and  upbuilding,  she  was  wifling  to  make  the  Peace  of 
Portsmouth.  Her  financial  difficulties  were  great,  im- 
posing an  abnormally  heavy  taxation.  No  people  had 
accomplished  so  vast  a  transformation  in  so  short  a 
time. 

The  lesson  of  these  tremendous  events  was  not  lost 
upon  the  Chinese.  The  victories  of  Japan,  an  Oriental 
state,  over  a  great  Occidental  power,  as  well  as  over 
China,  convinced  many  influential  Chinese  of  the 
advantage  to  be  derived  from,  an  adoption  of  Euro- 
pean methods,  an  appropriation  of  European  knowl- 
edge. Moreover,  they  saw  that  the  only  way  to  repel 
the  aggressions  of  outside  powers  was  to  be  equipped 
with  the  weapons  used  by  the  aggressor. 

The  leaven  of  reform  began  to  work  fruitfully  in 
the  Middle  Kingdom,  A  military  spirit  arose  in  this 
state,  which  formerly  despised  the  martial  virtues. 
Under  the  direction  of  Japanese  instructors  a  begin- 
ning was  made  in  the  construction  of  a  Chinese  army 
after  European  models  and  equipped  in  European 
fashion.  The  acquisition  of  Western  knov/ledge  was 
encouraged.  Students  went  in  large  numbers  to  the 
schools  and  universities  of  Europe  and  America. 
Twenty  thousand  of  them  went  to  Japan.  The  State 
encouraged  the  process  by  throwing  open  the  civil 
service,  that  is,  official  careers,  to  those  who  obtained 
honors  in  examinations  in  Western  subjects.  Schools 
were  opened  throughout  the  country.     Even  public 


THE  FAR  EAST  281 

schools  for  girls  were  established  in  some  places,  a 
remarkable  fact  for  any  Oriental  country.  In  1906 
an  edict  was  issued  aiming  at  the  prohibition  of  the 
use  of  opium  within  ten  years.  This  edict  has  since 
been  put  into  execution  and  the  opium  trade  has 
finally  been  suppressed. 

Political  reorganization  was  also  undertaken.  An 
imperial  commission  was  sent  to  Europe  in  1905  to 
study  the  representative  systems  of  various  countries, 
and  on  its  return  a  committee,  consisting  of  many 
high  dignitaries,  was  appointed  to  study  its  report. 
In  August,  1908,  an  official  edict  was  issued  prom- 
ising, in  the  name  of  the  Emperor,  a  constitution  in 
1917. 

But  the  process  of  transformation  was  destined  to 
proceed  more  rapidly  than  was  contemplated.  Radi- 
cal and  revolutionary  parties  appeared  upon  the  scene, 
demanding  a  constitution  immediately.  As  the  Im- 
perial Government  could  not  resist,  it  granted  one 
in  191 1,  establishing  a  parliament  with  extensive  pow- 
ers. To  cap  all,  in  central  and  southern  China,  a  re- 
publican movement  arose  and  spread  rapidly.  Finally 
a  republic  was  proclaimed  at  Nanking  and  Dr.  Sun 
Yat  Sen,  who  had  been  educated  in  part  in  the  United 
States,  was  elected  president.  A  clash  between  this 
republican  movement  and  the  imperial  party  in  the 
north  resulted  in  the  forced  abdication  of  the  boy 
Emperor  (February,  1912).  This  was  the  end  of  the 
Manchu  dynasty.  Thereupon  Yuan  Shih  K'ai  was 
chosen  President  of  the  Republic  of  China.  The  situ- 
ation confronting  the  new  Republic  was  extremely 
grave.    Would  it  prove  possible  to  establish  the  new 


283  FIFTY  YEARS  OF -EUROPE 

regime  upon  solid  and  enduring  bases,  or  would  the 
Republic  fall  a  prey  to  the  internal  dissensions  of  the 
Chinese,  or  to  foreign  aggression  at  the  hands  of  Eu- 
ropean powers,  or,  more  likely,  at  the  hands  of  an 
ambitious  and  militaristic  neighbor,  Japan?  These 
were  the  secrets  of  the  future. 

Yuan  Shih  K'ai  was  elected  President  for  a  term 
of  five  years.  His  administration  was  marked  by  a 
growing  tension  between  his  increasingly  autocratic 
tendencies  and  the  liberal  and  radical  tendencies  of 
Parliament.  In  the  midst  of  his  term,  the  President 
died,  June  6,  1916.  He  was  succeeded  by  Li  Yuan- 
hung,  the  Vice-President,  generally  considered  more 
loyal  to  republican  principles. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

RUSSIA  SINCE  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  follow  with  some 
understanding  the  very  recent  history  of  Russia,  a 
history  at  once  crowded,  intricate,  and  turbulent. 
That  history  is  the  record  of  the  reaction  of  the  Jap- 
anese war  upon  Russia  herself. 

That  war  was  from  the  beginning  unpopular  with 
the  Russians.  Consisting  of  a  series  of  defeats,  its 
unpopularity  only  increased,  and  the  indignation  and 
wrath  of  the  people  were  shown  during  its  course  in 
many  ways.  The  Government  was  justly  held  respon- 
sible, and  was  discredited  by  its  failure.  As  the  war 
added  greatly  to  the  already  existing  discontent,  the 
plight  in  which  the  Government  found  itself  rendered 
it  powerless  to  repress  the  popular  expression  of  that 
discontent  in  the  usual  summary  fashion.  There  was 
for  many  months  extraordinary  freedom  of  discus- 
sion, of  the  press,  of  speech,  cut  short  now  and  then 
by  the  oflficials,  only  to  break  out  later.  The  war 
with  Japan  had  for  the  Government  most  unexpected 
and  unwelcome  consequences.  The  very  winds  were 
let  loose. 

The  minister  of  the  interior,  in  whose  hands  lay 
the  maintenance  of  public  order,  was  at  this  time 
Plehve,  one  of  the  most  bitterly  hated  men  in  recent 

283 


284  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Russian  history.  Plehve  had  been  in  power  since 
1902,  and  had  revealed  a  character  of  unusual  harsh- 
ness. He  had  incessantly  and  pitilessly  prosecuted 
liberals  everywhere,  had  filled  the  prisons  with  his 
victims,  had  been  the  center  of  the  movement  against 
the  Finns,  previously  described,  and  seems  to  have 
secretly  favored  the  horrible  massacres  of  Jews  which 
occurred  at  this  time.  He  was  detested  as  few  men 
have  been.  He  attempted  to  suppress  in  the  usual 
manner  the  rising  volume  of  criticism  occasioned  by 
the  war  by  applying  the  same  ruthless  methods  of 
breaking  up  meetings,  and  exiling  to  Siberia  students, 
professional  men,  laborers.  He  was  killed  July,  1904, 
by  a  bomb  thrown  under  his  carriage  by  a  former 
student,     Russia  breathed  more  easily. 

The  various  liberal  and  advanced  elements  of  the 
population  uttered  their  desires  with  a  freedom  such 
as  they  had  never  known  before.  They  demanded 
that  the  reign  of  law  be  established  in  Russia,  that 
the  era  of  bureaucratic  and  police  control,  recogniz- 
ing no  limits  of  inquisition  and  of  cruelty,  should 
cease.  They  demanded  the  individual  rights  usual 
in  western  Europe,  freedom  of  conscience,  of  speech, 
of  publication,  of  public  meetings  and  associations,  of 
justice  administered  by  independent  judges.  They 
also  demanded  a  constitution,  to  be  framed  by  the 
people,  and  a  national  parliament. 

The  Czar  showing  no  inclination  to  accede  to  these 
demands,  disorder  continued  and  became  more  wide- 
spread, particularly  when  the  shameful  facts  became 
known  that  officials  were  enriching  themselves  at  the 
expense  of  the  national  honor,  selling  for  private  gain 


RUSSIA  SINCE  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN     285 

supplies  intended  for  the  army,  even  seizing  the  funds 
of  the  Red  Cross  Society.  The  war  continued  to  be 
a  series  of  humiliating  and  sanguinary  defeats,  and  on 
January  i,  1905,  came  the  surrender  of  Port  Arthur 
after  a  fearful  siege.  The  horror  of  the  civilized  world 
was  aroused  by  an  event  which  occurred  a  few  weeks 
later,  the  slaughter  of  "  Bloody  Sunday  "  (January 
22,  1905).  Workmen  in  immense  numbers,  under 
the  leadership  of  a  radical  priest,  Father  Gapon,  tried 
to  approach  the  Imperial  Palace  in  St.  Petersburg, 
hoping  to  be  able  to  lay  their  grievances  directly  be- 
fore the  Emperor,  as  they  had  no  faith  in  any  of  the 
officials.  Instead  of  that  they  were  attacked  by  the 
Cossacks  and  the  regular  troops  and  the  result  was 
a  fearful  loss  of  life,  how  large  cannot  be  accurately 
stated. 

All  through  the  year  1905  tumults  and  disturbances 
occurred.  Peasants  burned  the  houses  of  the  nobles. 
Mutinies  in  the  army  and  navy  were  frequent.  The 
uncle  of  the  Czar,  the  Grand  Duke  Sergius,  one  of 
the  most  pronounced  reactionaries  in  the  Empire, 
who  had  said  "  the  people  want  the  stick,"  was  assas- 
sinated. Russia  was  in  a  state  bordering  on  anarchy. 
Finally  the  Czar  sought  to  reduce  the  ever-mounting 
spirit  of  opposition  by  issuing  a  manifesto  concerning 
the  representative  assembly  which  was  so  vehemently 
demanded  (August  19,  1905).  The  manifesto  proved 
a  bitter  disappointment,  as  it  spoke  of  the  necessity 
of  preserving  autocratic  government  and  promised  a 
representative  assembly  which  should  only  have  the 
power  to  give  advice,  not  to  see  that  its  advice  was  fol- 
lowed.   The  agitation,  therefore,  continued  unabated, 


286  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

or  rather  increased,  assuming  new  and  alarming 
aspects  which  exerted  in  the  end  a  terrific  pressure 
upon  the  Government.  Finally  the  Czar  on  Octo- 
ber 30,  1905,  issued  a  new  manifesto  which  prom- 
ised freedom  of  conscience,  speech,  meeting,  and 
association,  also  a  representative  assembly  or  Duma, 
to  be  elected  on  a  wide  franchise,  establishing  "  as 
an  immutable  rule  that  no  law  can  come  into  force 
without  the  approval  of  the  Duma,"  and  giving  to 
the  Duma  also  effective  control  over  the  acts  of  public 
ofBcials. 

The  Czar  thus  promised  the  Duma,  which  was  to 
be  a  law-making  body  and  was  to  have  a  supervision 
over  state  officials.  But  before  it  met  he  proceeded 
to  clip  its  wings.  He  issued  a  decree  constituting  the 
Council  of  the  Empire,  that  is,  a  body  consisting 
largely  of  official  appointees  from  the  bureaucracy,  or 
of  persons  associated  with  the  old  order  of  things,  as 
a  kind  of  Upper  Chamber  of  the  legislature,  of  which 
the  Duma  should  be  the  Lower.  Laws  must  have 
the  consent  of  both  Council  and  Duma  before  being 
submitted  to  the  Czar  for  approval. 

The  elections  to  the  Duma  were  held  in  March 
and  April,  1906,  and  resulted  in  a  large  majority  for 
the  Constitutional  Democrats,  popularly  called  the 
"  Cadets."  In  the  name  of  the  Czar  certain  "  organic 
laws "  were  now  issued,  laws  that  could  not  be 
touched  by  the  Duma.  Thus  the  powers  of  that  body 
were  again  restricted,  before  it  had  even  met. 

The  Duma  was  opened  by  Nicholas  II  in  person 
with  elaborate  ceremony.  May  10,  1906.  It  was  des- 
tined to  have  a  short  and  stormy  life,     It  showed 


RUSSIA  SINCE  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN     287 

from  the  beginning  that  it  desired  a  comprehensive 
reform  of  Russia  along  the  well-known  lines  of  west- 
ern liberalism.  It  was  combated  by  the  court  and 
bureaucratic  parties,  which  had  not  been  able  to  pre- 
vent its  meeting,  but  which  were  bent  upon  render- 
ing it  powerless,  and  were  only  waiting  for  a  favora- 
ble time  to  secure  its  abolition.  It  demanded  that 
the  Council  of  the  Empire,  the  second  chamber,  should 
be  reformed,  as  it  was  under  the  complete  control  of 
the  Emperor,  and  was  thus  able  to  nullify  the  work 
of  the  people's  chamber.  It  demanded  that  the  min- 
isters be  made  responsible  to  the  Duma  as  the  only 
way  of  giving  the  people  control  over  the  officials. 
It  demanded  the  abolition  of  martial  law  throughout 
the  Empire,  under  cover  of  which  all  kinds  of  crimes 
were  being  perpetrated  by  the  governing  classes.  It 
passed  a  bill  abolishing  capital  punishment.  As  the 
needs  of  the  peasants  were  most  pressing,  it  demanded 
that  the  lands  belonging  to  the  state,  the  crown,  and 
the  monasteries  be  given  to  them  on  long  lease. 

The  Duma  lasted  a  little  over  two  months.  Its 
debates  were  marked  by  a  high  degree  of  intelligence 
and  by  frequent  displays  of  eloquence,  in  which  sev- 
eral peasants  distinguished  themselves.  It  criticised 
the  abuses  of  the  Government  freely  and  scathingly. 
Its  sessions  were  often  stormy,  the  attitude  of  the 
ministers  frequently  contemptuous.  It  was  foiled  in 
all  its  attempts  at  reform  by  the  Council  of  the  Em- 
pire, and  by  the  Czar. 

The  crucial  contest  was  over  the  responsibility  of 
ministers.  The  Duma  demanded  this  as  the  only 
way  of  giving  the  people  an  effective  participation 


288  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

in  the  government.  The  Czar  steadily  refused.  A 
deadlock  ensued.  The  Czar  cut  the  whole  matter 
short  by  dissolving  the  Duma,  on  July  22,  1906,  ex- 
pressing himself  as  "  cruelly  disappointed "  by  its 
actions,  and  ordering  elections  for  a  new  Duma. 

The  second  Duma  was  opened  by  the  Czar  March 
5,  1907.  It  did  not  work  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
Government.  Friction  between  it  and  the  ministry 
developed  early  and  steadily  increased.  Finally  the 
Government  arrested  sixteen  of  the  members  and  in- 
dicted many  others  for  carrying  on  an  alleged  revolu- 
tionary propaganda.  This  was,  of  course,  a  vital 
assault  upon  the  integrity  of  the  assembly,  a  gross 
infringement  upon  even  the  most  moderate  constitu- 
tional liberties.  Preparing  to  contest  this  high- 
handed action,  the  Duma  was  dissolved  on  June 
16,  1907,  and  a  new  one  ordered  to  be  elected  in  Sep- 
tember, and  to  meet  in  November.  An  imperial  mani- 
festo was  issued  at  the  same  time  altering  the  elec- 
toral law  in  most  sweeping  fashion,  and  practically 
bestowing  the  right  of  choosing  the  large  majority 
of  the  members  upon  about  130,000  landowners.  This 
also  was  a  grave  infringement  upon  the  constitutional 
liberties  hitherto  granted,  which  had,  among  other 
things,  promised  that  the  electoral  law  should  not  be 
changed  without  the  consent  of  the  Duma. 

The  Government  declared  by  word  and  by  act  that 
the  autocracy  of  the  ruler  was  undiminished.  Illegali- 
ties of  the  old,  familiar  kind  were  committed  freely 
by  officials.  Reaction  ruled  unchecked.  The  third 
Duma,  elected  on  a  very  limited  and  plutocratic  suf- 
frage, was  opened  on  November  14,   1907.     It  was 


RUSSIA  SINCE  THE  WAR  WITH  JAPAN     289 

composed  in  large  measure  of  reactionaries,  of  large 
landowners.     It  proved  a  docile  assembly. 

The  Government  did  not  dare  to  abolish  the  Duma 
outright,  as  urged  by  the  reactionaries.  The  Duma 
continued  to  exist,  but  was  rather  a  consultative  than 
a  legislative  body.  With  the  mere  passage  of  time 
it  took  on  more  and  more  the  character  of  a  perma- 
nent institution,  exerting  a  feeble  influence  on  the 
national  life.  However,  the  government  of  Russia 
became  again  in  practice  what  it  had  been  before  the 
war  with  Japan,  what  it  had  been  all  through  the  nine- 
teenth century.  The  tremendous  struggle  for  liberty 
had  failed.  The  former  governing  classes  recovered 
control  of  the  state,  after  the  stormy  years  from 
1904  to  1907,  and  applied  once  more  their  former 
principles.  Among  these  were  renewed  attacks  upon 
the  Finns,  increasingly  severe  measures  against  the 
Poles,  and  savage  treatment  of  the  Jews.  Russia  was 
still  wedded  to  her  idols,  or  at  least  her  idols  had 
not  been  overthrown.  Her  mediaeval  past  was  still 
the  strongest  force  in  the  state  to  which  it  still  gave 
a  thoroughly  mediaeval  tone.  Whether  the  war  of 
1914  would  result  in  accomplishing  what  the  war  with 
Japan  began  but  did  not  achieve,  a  sweeping  reforma- 
tion of  the  institutions  and  policies,  ambitions  and 
mental  outlook  of  the  nation,  was,  of  course,  the  secret 
of  the  future. 


CHAPTER  XV 
THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913 

The  Peace  Movement 

The  contemporary  world,  to  a  degree  altogether  un- 
precedented in  history,  has  been  dominated  by  the 
thought  of  war,  by  extraordinary  preparations  for 
war,  and  by  zealous  and  concerted  efforts  to  prevent 
war.  Finally  a  conflict  came  which  staggered  the 
imagination  and  beggared  description  and  whose  is- 
sues were  incalculable,  a  conflict  which  soon  clamped 
the  entire  world  in  its  iron  grip.  This  was  a  ghastly 
outcome  of  a  century  of  development,  rich  beyond 
compare  in  many  lines.  It  is,  however,  not  inexplica- 
ble and  it  is  important  for  us  to  see  how  so  melan- 
choly, so  sinister  a  turn  has  been  given  to  the  des- 
tinies of  the  race. 

The  rise  and  development  of  the  militaristic  spirit 
have  been  shown  in  the  preceding  pages.  The  Prus- 
sian military  system,  marked  by  scientific  thorough- 
ness and  efficiency,  has  been  adopted  by  most  of  the 
countries  of  the  Continent.  Europe  became  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  what  she  had 
never  been  before,  literally  an  armed  continent.  The 
rivalry  of  the  nations  to  have  the  most  perfect  instru- 
ments of  destruction,   the   strongest   army,   and   the 

290 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      291 

strongest  navy,  became  one  of  the  most  conspicuous 
features  of  the  modern  world.  Ships  of  war  were 
made  so  strong  that  they  could  resist  attack.  New 
projectiles  of  terrific  force  were  consequently  required 
and  the  torpedo  was  invented.  A  new  agency  would 
be  useful  to  discharge  this  missile  and  thus  the  tor- 
pedo boat  was  developed.  To  neutralize  it  was  there- 
fore the  immediate  necessity  and  the  torpedo-boat 
destroyer  was  the  result.  Boats  that  could  navigate 
beneath  the  waters  would  have  an  obvious  advantage 
over  those  that  could  be  seen,  and  the  submarine  was 
provided  for  this  need.  And  finally  men  took  posses- 
sion of  the  air  with  dirigible  balloons  and  aeroplanes, 
as  aerial  auxiliaries  of  war.  Thus  man's  immemorial 
occupation,  war,  gained  from  the  advance  of  science 
and  contributed  to  that  advance.  The  wars  of  the 
past  were  fought  on  the  surface  of  the  globe.  Those 
of  the  present  are  fought  in  the  heavens  above,  and 
in  the  earth  beneath,  and  in  the  waters  under  the 
earth. 

But  all  this  is  tremendously  expensive.  It  costs 
more  than  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  construct 
the  largest  coast  defense  gun,  which  carries  over 
twenty  miles,  and  its  single  discharge  costs  a  thou- 
sand dollars.  Fifteen  millions  are  necessary  to  build 
a  dreadnought,  and  now  we  have  super-dreadnoughts, 
more  costly  still  and  more  destructive.  The  debts  of 
European  countries  were  nearly  doubled  during  the 
last  thirty  years,  largely  because  of  military  expendi- 
tures. The  military  budgets  of  European  states  in  a 
time  of  "  armed  peace  "  amounted  to  not  far  from  a 
billion  and  a  half  dollars  a  year,  half  as  much  again 


292  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

as  the  indemnity  exacted  by  Germany  from  France  in 
1871.  The  burden  became  so  heavy,  the  rivalry  so 
keen  that  it  gave  rise  to  a  movement  which  aimed 
to  end  it.  The  very  aggravation  of  the  evil  prompted 
a  desire  for  its  cure. 

In  the  summer  of  1898  the  civil  and  military  authori- 
ties of  Russia  vi^ere  considering  how  they  might  escape 
the  necessity  of  replacing  an  antiquated  kind  of  artil- 
lery with  a  more  modern  but  very  expensive  kind. 
Out  of  this  discussion  emerged  the  idea  that  it  would 
be  desirable,  if  possible,  to  check  the  increase  of  arma- 
ments. This  could  not  be  achieved  by  one  nation 
alone,  but  must  be  done  by  all,  if  done  at  all.  The 
outcome  of  these  discussions  was  the  issuance  by  the 
Czar,  Nicholas  II,  on  August  24,  1898,  of  a  communi- 
cation to  the  powers,  suggesting  that  an  international 
conference  be  held  to  consider  the  general  problem. 

The  conference,  thus  suggested  by  the  Czar,  was 
held  at  The  Hague  in  1899.  Twenty-six  of  the  fifty- 
nine  sovereign  governments  of  the  world  were  repre- 
sented by  one  hundred  members.  Twenty  of  these 
states  were  European,  four  were  Asiatic — China, 
Japan,  Persia,  and  Siam — and  two  were  American — 
the  United  States  and  Mexico.  The  Conference  was 
opened  on  May  18  and  closed  on  July  29. 

The  ofificial  utterances  of  most  of  the  delegates  em- 
phasized the  frightful  burden  and  waste  of  this  vast 
expenditure  upon  the  equipment  for  war,  when  all 
nations,  big  and  little,  needed  all  their  resources  for 
the  works  of  peace,  for  education,  for  social  improve- 
ment in  many  directions.  Most  of  the  delegates  em- 
phasized also  the  loss  entailed  by  compulsory  military 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      293 

service,  removing  millions  and  millions  of  young  men 
from  their  careers,  from  productive  activity  for  several 
precious  years.  A  German  delegate,  on  the  other 
hand,  denied  all  this,  denied  that  the  necessary  weight 
of  charges  and  taxes  portended  approaching  ruin  and 
exhaustion,  declared  that  the  general  welfare  was  in- 
creasing all  the  while,  and  that  compulsory  military 
service  was  not  regarded  in  his  country  as  a  heavy 
burden,  but  as  a  sacred  and  patriotic  duty  to  which 
his  country  owed  its  existence,  its  prosperity,  and  its 
future. 

With  such  differences  of  opinion  the  Conference 
was  unable  to  reach  any  agreement  upon  the  funda- 
mental question  which  had  given  rise  to  its  convo- 
cation. It  could  only  adopt  a  resolution  expressing 
the  belief  that  "  a  limitation  of  the  military  expenses 
which  now  burden  the  world  is  greatly  to  be  desired 
in  the  interests  of  the  material  and  moral  well-being 
of  mankind "  and  the  desire  that  the  governments 
"  shall  take  up  the  study  of  the  possibility  of  an  agree- 
ment concerning  the  limitation  of  armed  forces  on 
land  and  sea,  and  of  military  budgets." 

With  regard  to  arbitration  the  Conference  was 
more  successful.  It  established  a  Permanent  Court 
of  Arbitration  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  arbitra- 
tion in  the  case  of  international  disputes  which  it  is 
found  impossible  to  settle  by  the  ordinary  means  of 
diplomacy.  The  Court  does  not  consist  of  a  group 
of  judges  holding  sessions  at  stated  times  to  try  such 
cases  as  may  be  brought  before  it.  But  it  is  provided 
that  each  power  "  shall  select  not  more  than  four 
persons    of   recognized    competence    in    questions    of 


294  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

international  law,  enjoying  the  highest  moral  repu- 
tation and  disposed  to  accept  the  duties  of  arbitra- 
tors," and  that  their  appointment  shall  run  for  six 
years  and  may  be  renewed.  Out  of  this  long  list  the 
powers  at  variance  may  choose,  in  a  manner  indicated, 
the  judges  who  shall  decide  any  given  case. 

Recourse  to  this  Court  is  optional,  but  the  Court 
is  always  ready  to  be  invoked.  Arbitration  is  en- 
tirely voluntary  with  the  parties  to  a  quarrel,  but  if 
they  wish  to  arbitrate  the  machinery  is  at  hand,  a 
fact  which  is,  perhaps,  an  encouragement  to  its  use. 

The  work  of  the  First  Peace  Conference  was  very 
limited  and  modest,  yet  encouraging.  But  that  the 
new  century  was  to  bring  not  peace  but  a  sword,  that 
force  still  ruled  the  world,  was  shortly  apparent. 
Those  who  were  optimistic  about  the  rapid  spread 
of  arbitration  as  a  principle  destined  to  regulate  the 
international  relations  of  the  future  were  sadly  dis- 
appointed by  the  meager  results  of  the  Conference, 
and  were  still  more  depressed  by  subsequent  events. 
For  almost  on  the  very  heels  of  this  Conference, 
which  it  was  hoped  would  further  the  interests  of 
peace,  came  the  devastating  war  in  South  Africa, 
followed  quickly  by  the  war  between  Russia  and 
Japan.  Also  the  expenditures  of  European  states 
upon  armies  and  navies  continued  to  increase,  and 
at  an  even  faster  rate  than  ever.  During  the  eight 
years,  from  1898  to  1906,  they  augmented  nearly 
£70,000,000,  the  sum  total  mounting  from  £250,000,- 
000  to  £320,000,000. 

Such  was  the  disappointing  sequel  of  the  Hague 
Conference.    But  despite  discouragements  the  friends 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      295 

of  peace  were  active,  and  finally  broug-ht  about  the 
Second  Conference  at  The  Hague  in  1907.  This  also 
was  called  by  Nicholas  IT,  though  President  Roose- 
velt had  first  taken  the  initiative.  The  Second  Con- 
ference was  in  session  from  June  15  to  October  18. 
It  vv^as  attended  by  representatives  from  forty-four  of 
the  world's  fifty-seven  states  claiming  sovereignty  in 
1907.  The  number  of  countries  represented  in  this 
Conference,  therefore,  was  nearly  double  that  repre- 
sented in  the  first,  and  the  number  of  members  was 
more  than  double,  mounting  from  one  hundred  to 
two  hundred  and  fifty-six.  The  chief  additions  came 
from  the  republics  of  Central  and  South  America. 
The  number  of  American  governments  represented 
rose,  indeed,  from  two  to  nineteen.  Twenty-one 
European,  nineteen  American,  and  four  Asiatic  states 
sent  delegates  to  this  Second  Conference.  Its  mem- 
bership illustrated  excellently  certain  features  of  our 
day,  among  others  the  indubitable  fact  that  we  live 
in  an  age  of  world  politics,  that  isolation  no  longer 
exists,  either  of  nation  or  of  hemispheres.  The  Con- 
ference was  not  European  but  international — the  ma- 
jority of  the  states  were  non-European. 

The  Second  Conference  accomplished  much  prom- 
ising work  in  the  adoption  of  conventions  regulating 
the  ctCtual  conduct  of  war  in  more  humane  fashion, 
and  in  defining  certain  aspects  of  international  law 
with  greater  precision  than  heretofore.  But,  con- 
cerning compulsory  arbitration,  and  concerning  dis- 
armament or  the  limitation  of  armaments,  nothing 
was  achieved.  It  passed  this  resolution :  "  The  Con- 
ference confirms  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  Con- 


/ 


296  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

ference  of  1899  in  regard  to  the  restriction  of  mili- 
tary expenditures;  and,  since  military  expenditures 
have  increased  considerably  in  nearly  every  country 
since  the  said  year,  the  Conference  declares  that  it  is 
highly  desirable  to  see  the  governments  take  up  the 
serious  study  of  the  question." 

This  Platonic  resolution  v^as  adopted  unanimously. 
A  grim  commentary  on  its  importance  in  the  eyes  of 
the  governments  was  contained  in  the  history  of  the 
succeeding  years  with  their  ever-increasing  military 
and  naval  appropriations,  their  tenser  rivalry,  their 
deepening  determination  to  be  ready  for  whatever 
the  future  might  have  in  store. 

That  future  had  in  store  for  1912  and  1913  two 
desperate  wars  in  the  Balkan  peninsula  and  for  1914 
an  appalling  cataclysm. 

The  Collapse  of  the  Ottoman  Empire 


We  have  seen  with  what  enthusiasm  the  bloodless 
v  revolution  of  July  24,  1908,  was  hailed  by  all  the 
races  of  Turkey.  It  seemed  the  brilliant  dawn  of 
a  new  era.  It  has,  however,  proved  to  be  the  begin- 
ning of  the  end  of  the  Turkish  Empire  in  Europe, 
if  not  in  Asia  as  well.  From  that  day  to  the  out- 
break of  the  European  War  six  years  later  the  Bal- 
kan peninsula  was  the  storm  center  of  the  world. 
Event  succeeded  event,  swift,  startling,  and  sensa- 
tional, throwing  a  lengthening  and  deepening  shadow 
before.  No  adequate  description  of  these  crowded 
years  can  be  attempted  here.  Only  an  outline  can 
be  given  indicating  the  successive  stages  of  a  portent- 
ous and  absorbing  drama. 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      297 

The  ease  with  which  the  Young  Turks  overthrew 
in  those  July  days  of  1908  the  loathsome  regime  of 
Abdul  Hamid,  and  the  principles  of  freedom  and  fair 
play  which  they  proclaimed,  aroused  the  happiest 
anticipations,  and  enlisted  the  liveliest  sympathy 
among  multitudes  within  and  without  the  Empire. 
The  very  atmosphere  was  charged  with  the  hope  and 
the  expectation  that  the  reign  of  liberty,  equality, 
and  fraternity  was  about  to  begin  for  this  sorely  vis- 
ited land,  where  unreason  in  all  its  varied  forms  had 
hitherto  held  sway.  Would  not  Turkey,  rejuvenated, 
modernized,  and  liberalized,  strong  in  the  loyalty  and 
well-being  of  its  citizens,  freed  from  the  blighting  in- 
heritance of  its  gloomy  past,  take  an  honorable  place 
at  last  in  the  family  of  humane  and  progressive  na- 
tions? Might  not  the  old  racial  and  religious  feuds 
disappear  under  a  new  regime,  where  each  locality 
would  have  a  certain  autonomy,  large  enough  to  en- 
sure essential  freedom  in  religion  and  in  language? 
Might  not  a  strong  national  patriotism  be  developed 
out  of  the  polyglot  conditions  by  freedom,  a  thing 
which  despotism  had  never  been  able  to  evoke? 
Might  not  Turkey  become  a  stronger  nation  by  adopt- 
ing the  principles  of  true  toleration  toward  all  her 
various  races  and  religions?  Had  not  the  time  come 
for  the  elimination  of  these  primitive  but  hardy  preju- 
dices and  animosities?  Might  not  races  and  creeds 
be  subordinated  to  a  large  and  essential  unity?  Might 
not  this  be  the  final,  though  unexpected,  solution  of 
the  famous  Eastern  Question? 

Even  in  those  golden  days  some  doubted,  not  seeing 
any  authentic  signs  of  an  impending  millennium  for 


298  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

that  distracted  corner  of  the  world.  At  least  the 
problem  of  so  vast  a  transformation  would  be  very- 
difficult.  The  unanimity  shown  in  the  joyous  destruc- 
tion of  the  old  system  might  not  be  shown  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  new,  as  many  precedents  in  European 
history  suggested.  If  Turkey  were  left  alone  to  con- 
centrate her  entire  energy  upon  the  impending  work 
of  reform,  she  might  perhaps  succeed.  But  she  was 
not  to  be  left  alone  now  any  more  than  she  had  been 
for  centuries.  The  Eastern  Question  had  long  per- 
plexed the  powers  of  Europe,  and  had  at  the  same 
time  lured  them  on  to  seek  their  own  advantage  in 
its  labyrinthine  mazes.  It  was  conspicuously  an  in- 
ternational problem.  But  the  internal  reform  of 
Turkey  might  profoundly  alter  her  international  posi- 
tion by  increasing  the  power  of  the  Empire. 

Thus  it  came  about  that  the  July  Revolution  of 
1908  instantly  riveted  the  attention  of  European  pow- 
ers and  precipitated  a  series  of  startling  events. 
Might  not  a  reformed  Turkey,  animated  with  a  new 
national  spirit,  with  her  army  and  finances  reorgan- 
ized and  placed  upon  a  solid  basis,  attempt  to  recover 
complete  control  of  some  of  the  possessions  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  had  been  really,  though  not  nomi- 
nally and  technically,  torn  from  her — Bosnia,  Herze- 
govina, Bulgaria,  Crete,  possibly  Cyprus,  possibly 
Egypt?  There  was  very  little  evidence  to  show  that 
the  Young  Turks  had  any  such  intention  or  dreamed 
of  entering  upon  so  hazardous  an  adventure.  Indeed, 
it  was  quite  apparent  that  they  asked  nothing  better 
than  to  be  left  alone,  fully  recognizing  the  intricacy 
of  their  immediate  problem,  th^  need  of  quiet  for  its 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  19 12  AND  19 13      299 

solution.     But   the   extremity   of  one   is   the  oppor- 
tunity of  another. 

On  October  3,   igo8,  Emperor  Francis  Joseph  of     / 
Austria-Hungary  announced,  through  autograph  let- 
ters  to   various   rulers,   his   decision    to   incorporate 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  definitely  within  his  empire. 
These  were  Turkish  provinces,  handed  over  by  the 
Congress  of  Berlin  in   1878  to  Austria-Hungary  for  x/ 
""occupation  "  and  administration,  though  they  still 
remained  officially  under  the  suzerainty  of  the  Porte. 
On    October    5    Prince    Ferdinand    of    Bulgaria   pro-    y 
claimed,  amid  great  ceremony,  the  complete  independ- 
ence of  Bulgaria   from  Turkish   suzerainty,   and   as- 
sumed the  title  of  Czar.     Two  days  later  the  Greek      . 
population  of  the  island  of  Crete  repudiated  all  con-  V 
nection   with   Turkey    and   declared    for   union    with 
Greece.    On  the  same  day,  October  7,  Francis  Joseph 
issued  a  proclamation  to  the  people  of  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina    announcing    the    annexation    of    those 
provinces.     Against  this  action  Serbia  protested  vig- 
orously  to   the   powers,   her   parliament   was   imme- 
diately convoked,  and  the  war  spirit  flamed  up  and 
threatened  to  get  beyond   control.     Ferdinand   was 
prepared  to  defend  the  independence  of  Bulgaria  by 
going  to  war  with  Turkey,  if  necessary. 

These  startling  events  immediately  aroused  intense 
excitement  throughout  Europe.  They  constituted 
violent  breaches  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin.  The  crisis 
precipitated  by  the  actions  of  Austria-Hungary  and 
Bulgaria  brought  all  the  great  powers,  signatories 
of  that  treaty,  upon  the  scene.  It  became  quickly 
apparent  that  they  did  not  agree.     Germany  made 


/ 


y 


300  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

it  clear  that  she  would  support  Austria,  and  Italy 
seemed  likely  to  do  the  same.  The  Triple  Alji^Qce, 
therefore,  remained  firm.  In  another  group  were 
Great  Britain,  France,  and  Russia,  their  precise  posi- 
tion not  clear,  but  plainly  irritated  at  the  defiance 
of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin.  A  tremendous  interchange 
of  diplomatic  notes  ensued.  The  British  Foreign  Min- 
ister, Sir  Edward  Grey,  announced  that  Great  Brit- 
ain could  not  admit  "  the  right  of  any  power  to  alter 
an  international  treaty  without  the  consent  of  the 
other  parties  to  it,"  and  demanded  that,  as  the  public 
law  of  the  Balkans  rested  upon  the  Treaty  of  Berlin 
of  1878,  and  that  as  that  treaty  was  made  by  all  the 
great  powers,  it  could  only  be  revised  by  the  great 
powers,  meeting  again  in  Congress.  But  neither  Aus- 
tria nor  Germany  would  listen  to  this  suggestion. 
They  knew  that  Russia  could  not  intervene,  lamed, 
as  she  was,  by  the  disastrous  war  with  Japan,  with 
her  army  disorganized  and  her  finances  in  bad  condi- 
tion. And  they  had  no  fear  of  Great  Britain  and 
France,  Thus  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  was  flouted,  al- 
though later  the  signatories  of  that  treaty  formally 
recognized  the  accomplished  fact. 

Of  all  the  states  the  most  aggrieved  by  these  occur- 
rences was  Serbia,  and  the  most  helpless.  For  years 
the  Serbians  had  entertained  the  ambition  of  uniting 
Serbia,  Bosnia,  Herzegovina,  and  Montenegro,  peo- 
pled by  members  of  the  same  Serbian  race,  thus  re- 
storing the  Serbian  empire  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and 
gaining  access  to  the  sea.  This  plan  was  blocked, 
apparently  forever.  Serbia  could  not  expand  to  the 
west,  as  Austria  barred  the  way  with   Bosnia  and 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      301 

Herzegovina.  She  could  not  reach  the  sea.  Thus 
she  could  get  her  products  to  market  only  with  the 
consent  of  other  nations.  She  alone  of  all  the  states 
in  Europe,  with  the  exception  of  Switzerland,  was 
in  this  predicament.  Feeling  that  she  must  thus  be- 
come a  vassal  state,  probably  to  her  enemy,  Austria- 
Hungary,  seeing  all  possibility  of  expansion  ended, 
all  hopes  of  combining  the  Serbs  of  the  Balkans  under 
her  banner  frustrated,  the  feeling  was  strong  that 
war,  even  against  desperate  odds,  was  preferable  to 
strangulation.  However,  she  did  not  fly  to  arms. 
But  the  feeling  of  anger  and  alarm  remained,  an  ele- 
ment in  the  general  situation  that  could  not  be  ig- 
nored, auguring  ill  for  the  future. 

But  trouble  for  the  Young  Turks  came  not  only 
from  the  outside.  It  also  came  from  inside  and,  as 
Vi^as  shortly  seen,  it  lay  in  large  measure  in  their  own 
unwisdom.  Difficulties  manifold  encompassed  them 
about. 

The   new   Turkish    Parliament   met  in    December, 

1908,  amid  general  enthusiasm.  It  consisted  of  two 
chambers,  a  Senate,  appointed  by  the  Sultan,  and 
a  Chamber  of  Deputies,  elected  by  the  people.  Four 
months  later  events  occurred  which  threatened  the 
abrupt  termination  of  this  experiment  in  constitu- 
tional and  parliamentary  government.     On  April  13, 

1909,  without  warning,  thousands  of  troops  in  Con- 
stantinople broke  into  mutiny,  killed  some  of  their 
officers,  denounced  the  Young  Turks,  and  demanded 
the  abolition  of  the  constitution.  The  city  was  ter- 
rorized. At  the  same  time  sickening  massacres  oc- 
curred in  Asia  Minor,  particularly  at  Adana,  showing 


302  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

that  the  religious  and  racial  animosities  of  former 
times  had  lost  none  of  their  force.  It  seemed  that 
the  new  regime  was  about  to  founder  utterly.  A 
counter-revolution  was  to  undo  the  work  of  July.  But 
this  counter-revolution  was  energetically  suppressed 
by  troops  sent  up  from  Salonica  and  Adrianople 
and  the  Young  Turks  were  soon  in  power  again. 
Holding  that  the  mutiny  had  been  inspired  and  or- 
ganized by  the  Sultan,  who  had  corrupted  the  troops 
so  that  he  might  restore  the  old  regime,  they  resolved 
to  terminate  his  rule.  On  April  "ZJ,  1909,  Abdul 
Hamid  II  was  deposed,  and  was  immediately  taken 
as  a  prisoner  of  state  to  Salonica.  He  was  succeeded 
by  his  brother,  whom  he  had  kept  imprisoned  many 
years.  The  new  Sultan,  Mohammed  V,  was  in  his 
sixty-fourth  year.  He  at  once  expressed  his  entire 
sympathy  with  the  armies  of  the  Young  Turks,  his 
intention  to  be  a  constitutional  monarch.  The  Young 
Turks  were  in  power  once  more. 

From  the  very  beginning  they  failed.  They  did 
not  rise  to  the  height  of  their  opportunity,  they  did 
not  meet  the  expectations  that  had  been  aroused, 
they  did  not  loyally  live  up  to  the  principles  they 
professed.  They  made  no  attempt  to  introduce  the 
spirit  of  justice,  of  fair  play  toward  the  various  ele- 
ments of  their  highly  composite  empire.  Instead  of 
seeking  to  apply  the  principles  of  liberty,  equaHty, 
and  fraternity,  they  resorted  to  autocratic  govern- 
ment, to  domination  by  a  single  race,  to  the  ruthless 
suppression  of  the  rights  of  the  people.  They  did  just 
what  the  Germans  have  done  in  Alsace-Lorraine  and 
Posen,  what  the  Russians  have  done  in  Finland  and 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      303 

in  Poland,  and  what  the  Austrians  and  Hungarians 
have  done  with  the  Slavic  peoples  within  their  bor- 
ders. The  policy  of  oppression  of  subject  races,  the 
attempt  at  amalgamation  by  force  and  craft,  have 
strewn  Europe  with  combustible  material  and  the 
combustion  has  finally  come.  The  government  of  the 
Young  Turks  was  just  as  despotic  as  that  of  Abdul 
Hamid  and  its  outcome  was  the  same,  a  further  and 
decisive  disruption  of  the  Empire. 

From  the  very  first  they  showed  their  purpose. 
They,  the  Turks,  that  is  the  Mohammedan  ruling- 
race,  determined  to  keep  power  absolutely  in  their 
own  hands  by  hook  or  crook.  In  the  very  first  elec- 
tions to  Parliament  they  arranged  affairs  so  that  they 
would  have  a  majority  over  all  other  races  combined. 
They  did  not  intend  to  divide  power  with  the  Chris- 
tian Greeks  and  Armenians  or  the  Mohammedan 
Arabs.  Their  policy  was  one  of  Turkification,  just 
as  the  Russian  policy  was  one  of  Russification,  the 
German  of  Germanization.  They  made  no  attempt 
to  punish  the  perpetrators  of  the  Adana  massacres  in 
which  over  thirty  thousand  Armenian  Christians  were 
slaughtered.  The  Armenian  population  was  thus 
alienated  from  them.  They  tried  to  suppress  the 
liberties  which  under  all  previous  regimes  the  Ortho- 
dox Greek  Church  had  enjoyed.  As  they  intended 
to  subject  all  the  races  of  the  Empire  to  their  own 
race,  so  they  intended  to  suppress  by  force  all  reli- 
gious privileges.  They  thus  offended  and  infuriated 
the  Greeks,  whom  they  also  alarmed  and  embittered 
by  a  commercial  boycott  because  the  Greeks  would 
not  agree  to  their  repressive  policy  in  regard  to  the 


304  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Cretans.  Their  treatment  of  Macedonia  was  the  acme 
of  folly.  They  sought  to  reinforce  the  Moslem  ele- 
ments of  the  population  by  bringing  in  Moslems  from 
other  regions.  This  aroused  the  Christian  elements, 
Greek,  Bulgarian,  and  Serbian.  Large  numbers  of 
these  Christians  fled  from  Macedonia  to  Greece,  Bul- 
garia, and  Serbia,  carrying  with  them  their  griev- 
ances, urging  the  governments  of  those  countries  to 
hostility  against  the  Turks. 

The  Turks  went  a  step  farther.  In  the  west  were 
the  Albanians,  a  Moslem  people  who  had  hitherto 
combined"  local  independence  with  loyal  and  appre- 
ciated services  to  the  Turkish  authorities,  in  both  the 
army  and  the  government.  The  Turks  decided  to 
suppress  this  independence  and  to  make  the  Alba- 
nians submit  in  all  matters  to  the  authorities  at  Con- 
stantinople. But  the  Albanians  had  been  for  cen- 
turies remarkable  fighters.  They  now  flew  to  arms. 
Year  after  year  the  Albanian  rebellion  broke  out, 
only  temporarily  subdued  or  smothered  by  the  Turks, 
who  thus  exhausted  their  strength  and  squandered 
their  resources  in  fruitless  but  costly  efiforts  to 
"  pacify  "  these  hardy  war-loving  mountaineers. 

Thus  only  a  few  years  of  Young  Turk  rule  were 
necessary  to  create  a  highly  critical  situation,  so  nu- 
merous were  the  disaffected  elements.  There  had 
been  no  serious  attempt  to  regenerate  Turkey,  to 
"bring  together  the  various  races  on  the  basis  of  lib- 
erty for  all.  Turkey  lost  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
its  Christian  subjects  who  fled  to  surrounding  coun- 
tries rather  than  endure  the  odious  oppression.    These 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      305 

exiles  did  what  they  could  to  hit  back  at  their  op- 
pressors. 

The  Young  Turks  from  the  very  beginning  failed 
as  reformers  because  they  were  untrue  to  their  prom- 
ises. Their  failure  led  to  war  in  the  Balkans  and 
the  war  in  the  Balkans  led  to  the  European  War. 
They  spent  their  time  in  endeavoring  to  assert  them- 
selves as  a  race  of  masters.  They  sowed  the  wind 
and  they  quickly  reaped  the  whirlwind. 

The  Turko-Italian  War  of  191  i 

While  the  Turkish  Empire  was  in  this  highly  per- 
turbed condition  and  while  the  Balkan  states  were 
aglow  with  indignation  at  the  treatment  being  meted 
out  to  the  members  of  their  races  resident  in  Mace- 
donia and  were  trembling  with  the  desire  to  act, 
trouble  flared  up  for  the  Young  Turks  in  another 
quarter.  Italy  had  for  years  been  casting  longing 
eyes  on  the  territories  which  fringe  the  southern 
shores  of  the  Mediterranean.  She  had  once  hoped 
to  acquire  Tunis,  but  had  unexpectedly  found  herself 
forestalled  by  France,  which  seized  that  country  in 
1881.  At  the  same  time  England  began  her  occu- 
pation of  Egypt.  All  that  remained  therefore  was 
Tripoli,  like  Egypt,  a  part  of  the  Turkish  Empire. 
For  many  years  the  thought  that  this  territory  ought 
to  belong  to  Italy  had  been  accepted  as  axiomatic 
in  influential  quarters  in  the  Italian  government  and 
diplomatic  circles.  Schemes  had  been  worked  out 
and  partly  put  into  force  for  a  "  pacific  penetration  " 
of  an  economic  character  of  this  land.     Now,  how- 


3o6  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

ever,  the  time  to  seize  it  outright  seemed  to  have  ar- 
rived. Austria-Hungary  had  annexed  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina,  and  Bulgaria  had  declared  her  inde- 
pendence in  1908,  and  there  had  been  no  successful 
opposition  on  the  part  of  Turkey  or  of  any  of  the 
Great  Powers.  Was  not  this  the  ripe  moment  for 
Italy's  project? 

She  evidently  thought  so,  for,  in  September,  191 1, 
she  sent  her  warships  to  Tripoli  and  began  the  con- 
quest of  that  country.  It  proved  a  more  difficult 
undertaking  than  had  been  imagined.  While  she 
seized  the  coast  towns,  her  hold  on  them  was  pre- 
carious and  her  progress  into  the  interior  was  slow 
and  costly,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Turks  aroused 
and  directed  the  natives  against  the  invaders.  Italy 
had  given  her  ally  Austria-Hungary  to  understand 
that  she  would  not  attack  Turkey  directly  in  Europe, 
as  European  Turkey  was  a  veritable  tinder-box  which, 
if  it  once  caught  fire,  might  blaze  up  into  a  devastat- 
ing and  incalculable  conflagration.  But  as  month 
after  month  went  by  and  Italy  was  producing  only 
an  uncertain  eflfect  in  Tripoli,  she  resolved  on  more 
decisive  action  nearer  Constantinople,  hoping  to  bring 
the  Turks  to  terms.  She  attacked  and  seized  Rhodes 
and  eleven  other  Turkish  islands  in  the  ^gean,  the 
Dodecanese.  This,  and  the  fact  that  an  Albanian  rev- 
olution against  the  Turks  was  at  the  same  time  at- 
taining alarming  proportions,  made  the  latter  ready 
to  conclude  peace  with  Italy  so  that  they  might  be 
free  to  put  down  the  Albanians.  On  October  15, 
1912,  was  signed  at  Ouchy,  or  Lausanne,  a  treaty 
whereby  Turkey  relinquished  Tripoli.     It  was  also 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  19 13      307 

provided  that  Italy  should  withdraw  her  troops  from 
the  Dodecanese  as  soon  as  the  Turkish  troops  were 
withdrawn  from  Tripoli,  a  phrase  about  which  it  was 
easy  to  quibble  later. 

The  great  significance  of  this  war  did  not  lie  in 
the  fact  that  Italy  acquired  a  new  colony.  It  lay  in 
the  fact  that  it  began  again  the  process,  arrested  since 
1878,  of  the  violent  dismemberment  of  the  Turkish 
Empire;  that  it  revealed  the  military  weakness  of  that 
Empire,  powerless  to  preserve  its  integrity;  and,  what 
is  most  important,  that  it  contributed  directly  and 
greatly  to  a  far  more  serious  attack  upon  Turkey 
by  the  Balkan  states,  which,  in  turn,  led  to  the  Euro- 
pean War.  The  tinder-box  was  lighted  and  a  general 
European  conflagration  resulted.  The  Italian  attack/ 
upon  Tripoli  was  momentous  in  its  consequences.       K 

The  Balkan  Wars 

During  the  war  the  Balkan  states  were  negotiating 
with  each  other  with  a  view  to  united  action  against 
Turkey.  This  union  was  not  easy  to  bring  about, 
as  Bulgaria,  Serbia,  and  Greece  disliked  each  other 
intensely,  for  historical,  racial,  sentimental  reasons, 
too  numerous  and  too  complex  to  be  described  here. 
However,  they  disliked  the  Turks  more  and  they 
were  suffering  constantly  from  the  Turks.  Terrible 
persecutions,  even  massacres,  of  the  Christians  in 
Macedonia  in  which  large  numbers  of  Greeks,  Bul- 
garians, and  Serbians  lost  their  lives,  inflamed  the 
people  of  those  states  with  the  desire  to  liberate  their 
brothers  in  Macedonia.     By  doing  this  they  would 


3o8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

also  increase  their  own  territories  and  diminish  or 
end  an  odious  tyranny.  These  nations  found  it  possi- 
ble to  unite  for  the  purpose  of  overwhelming  the 
Turks;  they  might  not  find  it  possible  to  agree  as  to 
the  partition  among  themselves  of  any  territories 
they  might  acquire,  since  here  their  old,  established 
ambitions  and  antipathies  might  conflict.  It  was  be- 
cause of  the  strength  of  these  rivalries  and  hatreds 
that  neither  the  Turks  nor  the  outside  powers  con- 
sidered an  alliance  of  the  Balkan  states  as  at  all  among 
the  possibiHties.  But  the  statesmen  of  the  Balkans 
had  learned  something  from  the  troubled  history  of 
the  peninsula,  and  saw  the  folly  of  continuing  their 
dissensions.  They  also  realized  that  now  was  their 
chance,  that  they  might  never  again  find  their  com- 
mon enemy  so  weak  and  demoralized,  the  general 
European  situation  so  favorable. 

Thus  it  came  about  that  in  October,  1912,  the  four 
Balkan  states,  Montenegro,  Serbia,  Bulgaria,  and 
Greece  made  war  on  Turkey.  The  war  was  brief  and 
an  overwhelming  success  for  the  allies.  Fighting  be- 
gan on  October  15,  the  very  day  of  the  signing  of 
the  Treaty  of  Lausanne  between  Italy  and  Turkey, 
although  technically  the  declarations  of  war  were  not 
issued  until  October  18.  The  Greeks  pushed  north- 
ward into  Macedonia,  gained  several  victories  over 
the  enemy,  and  on  November  8,  only  three  weeks 
after  the  beginning  of  the  campaign,  they  entered  the 
important  city  and  port  of  Salonica,  with  Crown 
Prince  Constantine  at  their  head.  Farther  west  the 
Serbians  and  Montenegrins  were  also  successful.  The 
Serbians  won  a  great  victory  at  Kumanovo,  where 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      309 

they  avenged  the  defeat  of  their  ancestors  of  Kosovo, 
which  they  had  not  forgotten  for  five  hundred  years. 
They  then  captured  Monastir. 

Meanwhile  the  Bulgarians,  who  had  the  larger 
armies,  had  gone  from  victory  to  victory,  defeating 
the  Turks  brilliantly  in  the  battles  of  Kirk  Kilisse 
and  Lule  Burgas.  The  latter  was  one  of  the  great 
battles  of  modern  times,  three  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand troops  being  involved  in  fierce,  tenacious  strug- 
gle for  three  days.  The  result  was  the  destruction 
of  the  military  power  of  the  Turks.  By  the  middle 
of  November  the  Bulgarians  had  reached  the  Cha- 
taldja  line  of  fortifications  which  extend  from  the 
Sea  of  Marmora  to  the  Black  Sea.  Only  twenty- 
five  miles  beyond  them  lay  Constantinople. 

The  collapse  of  the  Turkish  power  in  Europe  was 
nearly  complete.  Only  the  very  important  fortresses 
of  Adrianople  in  the  east,  and  Janina  and  Scutari  in 
the  west,  had  not  fallen.  In  a  six  weeks'  campaign 
Turkish  possessions  in  Europe  had  shrunk  to  Con- 
stantinople and  the  twenty-five  mile  stretch  west  to 
the  Chataldja  fortifications.  This  overthrow  and  col- 
lapse came  as  a  staggering  surprise  to  the  Turks,  the 
Balkan  Allies  themselves,  and  the  Great  Powers.  The 
Ottoman  Empire  in  Europe  had  ceased  to  exist,  with 
the  exception  of  Constantinople,  Adrianople,  Janina, 
and  Scutari.  The  military  prestige  of  Turkey  was 
gone. 

In  December  delegates  from  the  various  states  met 
in  London  to  make  peace.  They  were  unsuccessful 
because  Bulgaria  demanded  the  surrender  of  Adrian- 
ople, which  the  Turks  flatly  refused.     In  March,  1913, 


3IO  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

therefore,  the  war  was  resumed.  One  after  another 
the  fortresses  fell,  Janina  on  March  6,  Adrianople  on 
March  26,  Scutari  on  April  23.  Turkey  was  now 
compelled  to  accept  terms  of  peace.  On  May  30,  the 
Treaty  of  London  was  signed.  It  provided  that  a 
line  should  be  drawn  from  Enos  on  the  yEgean  Sea 
to  Midia  on  the  Black  Sea  and  that  all  Turkey  west 
of  that  line  should  be  ceded  to  the  Balkan  Allies, 
except  a  region  of  undefined  dimensions  on  the  Adri- 
atic, Albania,  whose  boundaries  and  status  should  be 
determined  by  the  Great  Powers.  Crete  was  ceded 
to  the  Great  Powers  and  the  decision  as  to  the  islands 
in  the  ^gean  which  Greece  had  seized  was  also  left 
to  them.  In  December,  1913,  Crete  was  incorporated 
in  the  kingdom  of  Greece.  The  Sultan's  dominions 
in  Europe  had  shrunk  nearly  to  the  vanishing  point. 
After  five  centuries  of  proud  possession  he  found  him- 
self almost  expelled  from  Europe,  retaining  still  Con- 
stantinople and  only  enough  territory  round  about 
to  protect  it.  This  great  achievement  was  the  work 
of  the  four  Balkan  states,  united  for  once  in  the  com- 
mon work  of  liberation.  The  Great  Powers  had  done 
nothing.  Europe  felt  relieved,  however,  that  so  great 
a  change  as  this  in  the  map  of  the  Balkan  peninsula 
had  been  effected  without  involving  the  Great  Pow- 
ers in  war. 

The  Treaty  of  London,  however,  had  not  long  to 
live.  No  sooner  had  the  Balkan  states  conquered 
Turkey  than  they  fell  to  fighting  among  themselves 
over  the  division  of  the  spoils.  The  responsibility  for 
this  calamity  does  not  rest  solely  with  them.  It  rests 
in  part  with  the  Great  Powers,  particularly  with  Aus- 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      311 

tria  and  Italy.  It  was  the  intervention  of  these  pow- 
ers and  their  insistence  upon  the  creation  of  a  new 
independent  state,  Albania,  out  of  a  part  of  the  terri- 
tory now  relinquished  by  the  Turks,  that  precipitated 
a  crisis  whose  very  probable  issue  would  be  war.  For 
the  creation  of  this  new  state  on  the  Adriatic  coast 
absolutely  prevented  Serbia  from  realizing  one  of  her 
most  passionate  and  legitimate  ambitions,  an  outlet 
to  the  sea,  an  escape  from  her  land-locked  condition 
which  placed  her  at  the  mercy  of  her  neighbors. 

Before  beginning  the  war  with  the  Turks,  Serbia 
and  Bulgaria  had  defined  their  future  spheres  of  in- 
fluence in  upper  Macedonia,  should  the  war  result  in 
their  favor.  The  larger  part  of  Macedonia  should 
go  to  Bulgaria,  and  Serbia's  gains  should  be  chiefly 
in  the  west,  including  the  longed-for  Adriatic  sea- 
coast.  But  now  Albania  was  planted  there  and  Ser- 
bia was  as  land-locked  as  ever.  Austria  was  resolved 
that  Serbia  should  under  no  conditions  become  an 
Adriatic  state.  She  had  always  been  opposed  to  the 
aggrandizement  of  Serbia,  because  she  had  millions 
of  Serbs  under  her  own  rule  who  might  be  attracted 
to  an  independent  Serbia,  enlarged  and  with  prestige 
heightened.  Moreover,  she  believed  that  Serbia 
would  be  the  pawn  of  Russia,  and  she  would  not  tol- 
erate Russia's  influence  on  her  southern  borders  and 
along  the  Adriatic,  if  she  could  help  it.  She  did  hot 
propose  to  be  less  important  in  those  waters  than 
she  had  been  in  the  past.  Therefore,  Serbia  must 
be  excluded  from  the  Adriatic.  It  was  the  blocking 
of  Serbia's  outlet  to  the  sea  that  caused  the  second 
Balkan  war  between  the  allies.     Intense  was  the  in- 


312  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

dignation  of  the  Serbians,  but  they  could  do  nothing. 
They,  therefore,  sought  as  partial  compensation  larger 
territories  in  Macedonia  than  their  treaty  with  Bul- 
garia had  assigned  them,  arguing,  correctly  enough, 
that  the  conditions  had  greatly  changed  from  those 
contemplated  when  that  agreement  was  made  and  that 
the  new  conditions  justified  and  necessitated  a  new 
arrangement.  But  here  they  encountered  the  stub- 
born opposition  of  Bulgaria,  which  refused  any  con- 
cessions along  this  line  and  insisted  upon  the  strict 
observance  of  the  treaty.  Instantly  the  old,  bitter 
hatred  of  these  two  countries  for  each  other  flamed 
up  again.  The  Serbians  insisted  that  the  expulsion 
of  the  Turks  had  been  the  work  of  all  the  allies  and 
that  there  should  be  a  fair  division  of  the  territories 
acquired  in  the  name  of  all.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Bulgarians  argued  that  it  had  been  they  who  had 
done  the  heavy  fighting  in  the  war,  which  was  true, 
that  they  had  furnished  by  far  the  larger  number  of 
troops,  that  it  was  their  victories  at  Kirk  Kilisse  and 
Lule  Burgas  that  had  annihilated  the  power  of  the 
Turks  in  Europe,  that  they  were  entitled  to  annex 
territories  in  Macedonia  which  they  declared  were 
peopled  by  Bulgarians.  Other  considerations  also 
entered  into  the  situation. 

Suffice  it  to  say  that  Bulgaria  intended  to  have  her 
way.  Her  army  was  elated  by  the  recent  astounding 
successes,  was  rather  contemptuous  of  the  Serbians 
and  Greeks,  emphatically  minimized  the  services  ren- 
dered by  these  to  the  common  cause,  thought  that 
it  could  easily  conquer  both  if  necessary,  and  could 
take  what  territories  it  chose.    It  was  Bulgaria,  whose 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      313 

war  party  had  lost  all  sense  of  proportion,  all  sense  of 
the  rights  of  her  former  allies,  that  began  the  new 
struggle.  She  treacherously  attacked  Greece  and  Ser- 
bia at  the  end  of  June,  1913.  Fierce  fighting  ensued 
for  several  days. 

Bulgaria's  action  in  plunging  into  this  avoidable 
conflict  was  all  the  more  foolhardy  as  her  relations 
with  her  northern  neighbor,  Roumania,  were  also  un- 
settled and  precarious.  Roumania  had  demanded  that 
Bulgaria  cede  her  a  strip  of  territory  in  the  northeast 
of  Bulgaria,  in  order  that  the  balance  of  power  among 
the  Balkan  states  might  remain  practically  what  it 
had  been.  Biflgaria  had  refused  this  so-called  com- 
pensation. The  result  was  that  Roumania  also  went 
to  war  with  Bulgaria.  The  Turks,  too,  seeing  a 
chance  to  recover  some  of  the  land  they  had  recently 
lost,  joined  in  the  war. 

Thus  Bulgaria  was  confronted  on  all  sides  by  ene- 
mies. She  was  at  war  with  five  states,  not  three,  for 
Montenegro  was  also  involved.  By  the  middle  of 
July  she  saw  that  the  case  was  hopeless  and  consented 
to  make  peace,  by  the  Treaty  of  Bucharest,  signed 
August  10,  1913,  by  which  Serbia  and  Greece  secured 
larger  possessions  than  they  had  ever  anticipated,  and 
by  which  Roumania  was  given  the  territory  she  de- 
sired. Turkey  also  recovered  a  large  area  which  she 
had  lost  the  year  before,  including  the  important  city 
and  fortress  of  Adrianople.  All  this  was  at  the  ex- 
pense of  Bulgaria,  who  paid  for  her  arrogance  and 
unconciliatory  temper  by  losing  much  territory  which 
she  would  otherwise  have  secured,  by  seeing  her  for- 
mer and  hated  allies  victorious  over  her  in  the  field 


314  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

and  in  annexations  of  territory  which  she  regarded 
as  rightfully  hers.  Bulgaria  was  deeply  embittered 
by  all  this  and  only  waited  for  an  opportunity  to  tear 
up  the  Treaty  of  Bucharest,  which  she  refused  to 
consider  as  morally  binding,  as  in  any  sense  a  per- 
manent settlement  of  the  Balkans.  The  year  1913 
will  remain  of  bitter  memory  in  the  minds  of  all  Bul- 
garians. 

The  two  Balkan  wars  cost  heavily  in  human  life 
and  in  treasure.  Turkey  and  Bulgaria  each  lost  over 
150,000  in  killed  and  wounded,  Serbia  over  70,000, 
Greece  nearly  as  many,  little  Montenegro  over  10,000. 
The  losses  among  non-combatants  were  heavy  in 
those  who  died  from  starvation,  or  disease,  or  mas- 
sacre, for  the  second  war  was  one  of  indisputable 
atrocity.  On  the  other  hand,  Montenegro,  Greece, 
and  Serbia  had  nearly  doubled  in  size.  Bulgaria  and 
Roumania  had  grown.  The  Turkish  Empire  in 
Europe  had  shrunk  to  a  comparatively  small  area. 

We  must  now  examine  the  reaction  of  all  these 
profound  and  astonishing  changes  in  the  Balkans  upon 
Europe  in  general.  In  other  words,  we  must  study 
the  causes  of  the  war  of  1914.  For  the  Balkan  wars 
of  1912  and  1913  were  a  prelude  to  the  European 
War.  The  sequence  of  events  from  the  Turkish 
Revolution  of  July,  1908,  to  the  Austrian  declaration 
of  war  upon  Serbia  in  July,  1914,  is  direct,  unmis- 
takable, disastrous.  Each  year  added  a  link  to  the 
lengthening  chain  of  iron.  The  map  of  Europe  was 
thrown  into  the  flames.  What  the  new  map  would 
be  no  one  could  foresee. 

It  may  be  said  in  passing  that  the  new  Albanian 


THE  BALKAN  WARS  OF  1912  AND  1913      3^5 

state  proved  a  fiasco  from  the  start  and  that  it  dis- 
appeared completely  when  the  war  began  in  August, 
1914,  the  powers  that  had  created  it  withdrawing 
their  support  and  its  German  prince,  WilHam  of  Wied, 
leaving  for  Germany,  where  he  joined  the  army  that 
was  fighting  France.  He  had  meanwhile  announced 
his  abdication  in  a  high-flown  manifesto. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  WORLD  WAR 

In   August,    1913,   the   long-drawn-out   crisis   in   the 
Balkans  seemed  safely  over  with  the  Treaty  of  Bu- 
charest, to  the  apparent  satisfaction  of  the  people  of 
Europe.    It  had  not  resulted  in  what  had  been  greatly 
feared,  a  European  war.    That  had  been  avoided  and 
the  world  breathed  more  freely.    But  that  this  feeling 
was  not  shared  by  the  governments  of  Austria  and 
Germany  has  since  been  revealed.     Though  this  was 
not  publicly  known  until  more  than  a  year  afterward, 
it  is  now  estabHshed  that  on  August  9,  1913,  the  day 
before  the  Treaty  of  Bucharest  was  formally  signed, 
Austria  informed  her  ally,  Italy,  that  she  proposed 
to  take  action  against  Serbia.     She  represented  this 
proposed  action  as  defensive  and  as  therefore  justify- 
ing her  in  expecting  the  aid  of  Italy  under  the  terms 
of  the  treaty  of  the  Triple  AlHance.     Italy  through 
her  prime  minister,  Giolitti,  refused  to  accede  to  this 
view,  stating  that  such  a  war  would  not  be  one  of 
defense  on  the  part  of  Austria,  as  no  one  was  thinking 
of  attacking  her.     The  treaty  of  Triple  Alliance  re- 
quired its  members  to  aid  each  other  only  in  the  case 
of  a  defensive  war  forced  upon  a  colleague.     Austria, 
then,    planned    war    upon    Serbia    in    August,    1913. 
Whether  she  was  restrained  by  the  knowledge  that 

3161 


THE  WORLD  WAR  317 

Italy  would  not  support  her  or  by  other  considera- 
tions is  a  matter  for  conjecture. 

Prince  von  Biilow,  who  for  nine  years  had  been 
Chancellor  of  Germany,  has  declared  that  the  col- 
lapse of  Turkey  was  a  blow  to  Germany,  which  meant 
that  it  imperiled  the  plans  which  Germany  was  nour- 
ishing for  expansion  or  influence  in  the  Balkans  and 
the  East.  It  was  on  this  ground  that  in  1913  new 
army  and  taxation  bills,  extraordinarily  increasing 
Germany's  preparedness  for  war,  were  carried 
through.  This  inevitably  led  to  similar,  though  not 
to  as  sweeping,  legislation  in  France. 

Austria  and  Germany,  therefore,  were  far  from 
pleased  at  the  outcome  of  events  in  the  Balkans,  and 
the  former,  a  great  European  state  of  fifty  millions, 
was  planning  action  by  arms  against  Serbia,  a  nation 
of  now  perhaps  four  milHons,  a  nation  both  exhausted 
and  elated  by  two  years  of  war.  Of  course  Austria 
knew  that  any  such  action  would  bring  Russia  upon 
the  scene,  and  that  was  the  reason  for  her  desiring 
the  eventual  support  of  her  two  allies.  While  for 
reasons  that  are  somewhat  obscure,  Austria  finally 
did  not  consider  the  moment  opportune  for  making 
war  on  Serbia  in  August,  1913,  she  did  consider  it 
opportune  in  July,  1914,  and  from  her  action  at  that 
time  came  swiftly  and  dramatically  the  Great  War. 

The  relations  of  Austria-Hungary  and  Serbia  have 
already  been  alluded  to,  the  former's  annexation  of 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  in  1908,  and  her  part  in  the 
creation  of  the  new  state  of  Albania  for  the  same 
purpose,  to  prevent  Serbia's  getting  any  outlet  to  the 
sea.    Yet,  though  successful  in  this,  she  had  not  been 


3i8  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

able  to  prevent  the  growth  of  Serbia.  Serbia  had, 
however,  submitted  in  1908  and  1909  and  in  1913, 
to  demands  wdiich  emanated  from  Austria-Hungary 
and  which  were  deeply  humiliating.  On  both  sides 
there  was,  as  there  had  long  been,  plenty  of  bad 
blood. 

Suddenly  a  horrible  crime  occurred  which  set  in 
motion  a  mighty  and  lamentable  train  of  events.  On 
June  28,  1914,  the  Archduke  Francis  Ferdinand, 
nephew  of  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  and  heir  to  the 
throne,  was,  with  his  wife,  assassinated  in  the  streets 
of  Sarajevo,  the  capital  of  Bosnia.  The  men  who 
had  done  the  infamous  deed  were  Austrian  subjects, 
natives  of  Bosnia.  But  they  were  Serbians  by  race. 
An  outburst  of  intense  indignation  followed  against 
the  Serbians,  "  a  nation  of  assassins,"  it  was  declared. 
Serbia  was,  by  Austrian  opinion,  held  responsible, 
although  the  crime  occurred  on  Austrian  soil  and 
was  committed  by  Austrian  subjects,  and  although 
Austrian  methods  of  rule  in  Bosnia  were  of  such  a 
character  as  sufficiently  to  account  for  the  dastardly 
crime.  At  any  rate,  the  desire  for  war  was  expressed 
in  many  Austrian  newspapers,  which  held  the  Serbian 
government  responsible. 

But  four  weeks  went  by  and  the  Austrian  Govern- 
ment took  no  action.  No  information  could  be  ob- 
tained by  the  diplomats  in  Vienna  as  to  what  she 
proposed  to  do.  They  saw  no  reason  for  any  par- 
ticular worry,  as  the  government  was  evidently  so 
self-contained,  and  they  therefore  took  their  usual 
vacations.  It  was  intimated  that  Austria  would  make 
some  demands  upon  Serbia,  but  that  they  would  be 


THE  WORLD  WAR  319 

of  a  moderate  character.  There  was  widespread  sym- 
pathy with  her  and  a  general  feeHng  that  she  would 
be  justified  in  demanding  certain  things  of  Serbia. 
The  representatives  of  the  various  European  govern- 
ments were  kept  in  ignorance.  A  despatch,  which 
was  destined  to  shake  the  very  foundations  of  the 
world,  was  being  fashioned,  in  utter  silence  and 
mystery. 

On  July  23,  Austria  delivered  this  despatch  to  Ser- 
bia. It  began  by  accusing  the  Serbian  Government 
of  not  having  fulfilled  the  obligations  it  had  assumed 
in  1909  toward  Austria.  It  demanded  that  the  Ser- 
bian Government  should  publish  an  official  statement, 
the  terms  of  which  were  dictated  in  the  despatch, 
expressing  its  disapproval  of  the  propaganda  in  Ser- 
bia against  Austria-Hungary  and  its  regret  that  Ser- 
bian officials  had  taken  part  in  this  propaganda.  In 
the  despatch  the  murder  of  the  Archduke  was  ascribed 
to  that  propaganda.  Then  followed  ten  demands  upon 
the  Serbian  Government  concerning  the  suppression 
of  the  Pan-Serbian  propaganda  carried  on  by  the 
newspapers  and  the  secret  societies  of  Serbia.  The 
despatch  demanded  that  the  Serbian  Government 
should  suppress  any  publication  which  fostered  hatred 
of  and  contempt  for  the  Austro-Hungarian  monarchy, 
should  take  the  most  comprehensive  measures  for  the 
suppression  and  extinction  of  the  secret  societies, 
should  eliminate  from  the  schools  all  teachers  and 
from  text-books  anything  that  served  or  might  serve 
to  fester  the  propaganda  against  Austria-Hungary, 
should  remove  from  the  army  and  from  government 
positions  all  officials  involved  in  the  same  propaganda, 


320  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

whose  names  the  Austrian  Government  reserved  the 
right  to  communicate,  and  that  Serbia  should  accept 
the  cooperation  of  Austrian  officials  in  the  work  of  in- 
vestigating the  conspiracy  of  June  28.  Other  clauses 
in  this  fateful  despatch  concerned  the  arrest  of  the 
accomplices  in  the  assassination  and  the  prevention 
of  the  trade  in  arms  and  explosives  across  the  fron- 
tier. Annexed  to  the  despatch  was  a  memorandum 
asserting  that  the  murder  of  the  Archduke  and  the 
Archduchess  had  been  plotted  in  Serbia  and  had  been 
executed  through  the  complicity  of  Serbian  officials. 

This  despatch,  harsh  in  its  language,  dictatorial 
in  its  demands,  was  an  ultimatum,  for  it  required  the 
acceptance  of  it  in  its  entirety  within  forty-eight 
hours,  and  it  allowed  no  time  for  investigation  or 
discussion  of  the  charges  made  and  the  problems  cre- 
ated by  the  peremptory  demand.  No  nation  would 
issue  such  a  note  to  an  equal  without  intending  and 
without  desiring  war.  Issued  to  a  power  vastly  in- 
ferior, it  could  mean  only  unprecedented  humiliation 
or  national  extinction,  if  followed  up  at  the  expiration 
of  forty-eight  hours. 

This  Austrian  ultimatum  created  a  grave  crisis. 
The  ultimatum  was  not  a  passionate  and  unreflect- 
ing outburst  of  the  Austrian  Government,  swept  away 
by  a  natural  anger  at  the  foul  murders.  It  was  a  cold- 
blooded and  deliberate  document,  composed  after  four 
weeks  of  secret  preparation.  The  Russian  ambassa- 
dor had  not  been  told  that  it  was  coming  and  had 
left  Vienna  for  his  vacation.  The  Italian  Govern- 
ment had  not  been  informed,  although  it  was  an  ally 
and  was  particularly  concerned  with  anything  that 


THE  WORLD  WAR  321 

affected  the  Balkan  peninsula  in  any  way  or  part. 
In  this  fact  Italy  was  to  find  her  justification  for  re- 
maining neutral  when  the  war  finally  broke  out,  as 
she  regarded  that  war  as  an  aggressive  one  begun 
by  Austria.  The  ultimatum  gave  Serbia  the  alterna- 
tive of  accepting  egregiously  humiliating  conditions, 
practically  reducing  her  to  the  state  of  a  vassal  of 
Austria,  or  of  accepting  war. 

England,  France,  and  Russia  tried  to  induce  Aus- 
tria to  extend  her  time  limit  as  the  only  way  in  which 
diplomacy  might  seek  to  act  in  the  matter,  as,  more- 
over, required  if  the  relations  of  nations  were  to  be 
governed  by  a  reasonable  consideration  for  each 
other's  rights  or  wishes.  Their  efforts  were  in  vain. 
They  then  turned  to  Serbia,  urging  her,  in  the  inter- 
ests of  Europe  in  general,  to  make  her  answer  as  con- 
ciliatory as  possible.  The  result  was  that  Serbia  in 
her  reply  yielded  to  the  greater  part  of  what  Austria 
demanded  and  that  she  offered,  in  case  Austria  was 
not  satisfied  with  her  answer,  to  refer  the  question 
to  the  Hague  Tribunal  or  to  a  conference  of  the 
Great  Powers. 

No  state  ever  made  a  more  complete  submission 
under  particularly  humiliating  circumstances.  Aus- 
tria, however,  immediately  declared  the  Serbian  an- 
swer unsatisfactory  and  prepared  for  war.  She  well 
knew  that  such  action  would  necessarily  draw  Rus- 
sia into  the  controversy.  She  had  every  reason  a 
state  can  have  for  knowing  that,  after  the  defiance 
of  the  annexation  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  in  1908, 
another  attack  upon  a  small  Slavic  people  would 
deeply  offend  the  leading  Slavic  power,    Austria  could 


322  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

not  and  did  not  expect  to  be  able  to  wreak  her  venge- 
ance upon  Serbia  without  having  to  take  Russia 
into  account.  Hers,  therefore,  is  the  responsibility 
for  a  deliberate  and  highly  dangerous  provocation 
of  a  great  state.  Russia,  a  Slavic  power,  could  not 
be  ignored  by  Teutonic  powers  in  determining  the 
future  of  Slavic  peoples.  If  there  was  a  single  well- 
known  fact  in  the  whole  domain  of  European  politics 
it  was  that  Russia  was  greatly  interested  in  the  fate 
of  the  Slav  states  of  the  Balkans.  If  there  was  any 
other  well-established  commonplace  of  European  poli- 
tics, it  was  this,  that  every  Balkan  question  has  al- 
ways been  considered  as  of  general  concern,  as  dis- 
tinctly international.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Serbia's 
obligations  of  1909,  already  referred  to,  were  under- 
taken to  the  Powers,  not  to  Austria  alone. 

Austria's  position  was  that  her  action  concerned 
herself  and  Serbia  alone;  that  no  other  nation  or 
nations  were  involved  or  had  any  rights  in  the  mat- 
ter. In  this  she  was  supported  from  start  to  finish 
by  Germany.  Both  Austria  and  Germany  were  aware 
that  warlike  steps  against  Serbia  would  bring  Russia 
into  the  question  and  that,  owing  to  the  obligations 
of  the  Triple  and  Dual  alliances,  a  general  European 
war  might  result,  yet  both  steadily  refused  to  con- 
sider that  Russia  had  any  right  to  intervene;  it  was 
all  a  matter  solely  between  the  two,  Austria  and 
Serbia. 

Naturally  Russia  did  not  take  this  view.  Her  warn- 
ings having  proved  unavailing,  when  Austria  began 
to  prepare  for  the  attack  upon  Serbia,  Russia  began 
to  mobilize.    The  policy  of  Germany  through  that  last 


THE  WORLD  WAR  323 

week  of  July  was  to  support  Austria  in  her  contention 
that  this  was  her  affair.  She  asserted  that  the  quar- 
rel was  solely  one  between  those  two  and  that  no 
outside  power  had  the  right  to  intervene,  that,  if  the 
trouble  could  be  kept  confined  to  those  two,  there 
would  be  no  general  disturbance  of  the  peace,  that  if 
the  Czar,  however,  interfered  there  would  be  "  on  ac- 
count of  the  various  alliances,  inconceivable  conse- 
quences." If  this  was  all  that  Germany  did  for  peace, 
which  she  asserts  she  made  every  effort  to  maintain, 
then  she  did  simply  nothing,  for  this  policy  of  "  local- 
ization of  the  conflict  "  begged  the  whole  question. 
It  assumed  that  neither  Russia  nor  any  other  power 
was  in  any  way  concerned.  This  was  an  absolutely 
untenable  position  in  the  light  of  history,  of  reason, 
of  interest.  The  question  was  a  part  of  the  Eastern 
Question  which  over  and  over  has  been  considered 
and  known  to  be  emphatically  international.  No  as- 
pect of  that  question  is  to  be  left  to  the  determina- 
tion of  a  state  of  fifty  millions  in  conflict  with  one 
of  four  or  five. 

A  proposal  was  made  by  England  that  the  question 
at  issue  should  be  submitted  to  a  conference  to  be 
held  in  London  by  the  Great  Powers  not  directly  con- 
cerned, namely  Germany,  France,  England,  and  Italy. 
Perhaps  these  four  might  bring  about  the  adjustment 
of  the  difficulties  between  Serbia  and  Austria  and 
Russia.  Russia  signified  her  willingness,  but  the  pro- 
posal was  declined  by  Germany.  Other  suggestions 
of  a  somewhat  similar  nature  looking  toward  delay 
and  diplomatic  discussion  or  mediation  likewise  fell 
before   the   opposition   or   indifference   of   Germany. 


324  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Then  when  England  asked  Germany  herself  to  sug- 
gest some  method  of  mediation  for  the  preservation 
of  peace,  she  had  nothing  to  suggest.  She  simply  re- 
affirmed her  position  that  the  whole  matter  concerned 
merely  Austria  and  Serbia.  She  was  willing  to  appeal 
and  did  appeal  to  Russia  to  keep  out,  to  refrain  from 
mobilizing,  but  her  appeal  was  always  based  on  this 
thesis  that  the  quarrel  did  not  concern  Russia,  but 
did  concern  simply  Austria  and  Serbia,  a  point  of 
view  which,  naturally,  Russia  did  not  and  could  not 
share.  Germany  was  ready  to  cooperate  with  other 
powers  in  bringing  pressure  to  bear  upon  Russia,  but 
not  upon  her  ally  Austria,  who  had  begun  the  whole 
trouble  and  to  whom  she  gave  a  free  hand  in  her 
procedure  toward  Serbia. 

The  attitudes  of  Germany  and  Russia  were  irre- 
concilable. Germany  held  that  Russia  should  allow 
Austria  entire  liberty  of  action.  Russia  believed  that 
Austria's  uncompromising  and  violent  procedure  de- 
manded a  Russian  mobilization  "  directed  solely 
against  Austria-Hungary  "  as  the  only  method  that 
might  cause  that  country  to  moderate  her  procedure 
and  induce  her  to  recognize  the  rights  of  others.  If 
Russia  remained  inactive,  then  Austria  would  do  what 
she  liked  with  Serbia.  Russia  emphatically  claimed 
the  right  to  be  consulted  in  the  settlement  of  Balkan 
matters.  Austria  had  mobilized  and  on  July  28  had 
begun  a  war  upon  Serbia.  Russia  accordingly  mobil- 
ized against  Austria.  Germany  considered  this  action 
a  menace  to  herself,  and  on  July  31  sent  an  ultimatum 
to  Russia  demanding  that  Russia  begin  to  demobilize 
her  army  within  twelve  hours:  otherwise   Germany 


THE  WORLD  WAR  325 

would  mobilize.  As  Russia  did  not  reply  to  this  per- 
emptory demand,  Germany,  on  August  i,  declared 
that  a  state  of  war  existed  between  Russia  and  Ger- 
many. The  German  declaration  of  war  against  Russia 
necessarily  meant  war  with  France  as  well,  because 
of  the  Dual  Alliance. 

We  have  seen  that  this  Dual  Alliance  was  the  in- 
evitable outcome  of  the  existence  and  power  of  the 
Triple  Alliance,  concluded  between  Germany,  Aus- 
tria, and  Italy  in  1882.  The  Dual  Alliance  grew  out 
of  the  need  which  both  Russia  and  France  felt  of 
outside  support  in  the  presence  of  so  powerful  a  com- 
bination. If  there  was  to  be  anything  like  a  balance 
of  power  in  Europe,  Russia  and  France  must  com- 
bine. Both  alliances  were  defensive.  The  action  of 
Austria  against  Serbia  brought  Russia  upon  the  scene. 
Russia's  action  brought  Germany  forward.  Ger- 
many's action  necessitated  action  on  the  part  of 
France. 

One  state  was  free  to  act  as  it  saw  fit,  its  conduct 
not  controlled  by  any  entangling  alliance,  England. 
The  Triple  and  Dual  Alliances  rested  on  definite 
treaties,  neither  of  which  had  been  made  public,  and 
imposed  obligations  upon  the  contracting  parties. 
There  had  in  recent  years  also  grown  up  what  was 
called  the  Triple  Entente.  The  commercial  rivalry 
of  Germany  and  England,  during  the  past  fifteen  or 
twenty  years,  expressing  itself  in  a  struggle  for  mar- 
kets, in  colonial  competitions,  in  a  striking  develop- 
ment of  naval  power,  has  been  an  outstanding  fact 
in  recent  European  history.  Great  Britain,  seeing 
that  her  policy  of  isolation  was  possibly  becoming 


326  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

dangerous  with  so  active  and  successful  a  rival  in  the 
field,  sought,  in  the  first  decade  of  the  tv^entieth  cen- 
tury, to  settle  long  continued  misunderstandings  with 
France  and  Russia.  This  she  did  by  a  treaty  with 
France  in  1904  and  with  Russia  in  1907.  These  agree- 
ments settled  certain  problems  and  provided  certain 
measures  in  common,  the  former  in  Africa,  the  latter 
in  Asia.  During  succeeding  diplomatic  crises  the 
three  powers  worked  in  substantial  harmony.  But 
the  Triple  Entente  was  not  an  alliance :  it  was  simply 
a  diplomatic  group  that  might  be  found  working  to- 
gether when  the  interests  of  its  members  happened 
to  coincide.  There  was  no  actual  alliance  between 
Great  Britain  and  France  and  there  was  no  under- 
standing of  any  kind  between  Great  Britain  and  Rus- 
sia, with  regard  to  any  European  policy  or  contin- 
gency. When  the  crisis  of  1914  arose  Great  Britain 
was  free  to  act  as  she  chose,  in  the  light  of  what  she 
considered  her  interests.  The  diplomatic  correspond- 
ence shows  that  this  was  understood  in  Berlin  and 
Vienna  as  it  was  understood  in  Paris  and  St.  Peters^ 
burg. 

But  while  Great  Britain  had  no  alliances  that  nec- 
essarily involved  her  in  the  present  war,  yet  as  a 
European  power,  and  as  a  great,  imperial,  colonial 
state,  she  had  many  and  important  interests  for  which 
she  must  care.  It  was  for  her  interest  that  there 
should  be  no  European  war  and  it  was  also  for  the 
interest  of  Europe  and  the  world.  The  negotiations 
of  that  week  in  July,  from  the  issuance  of  the  ulti- 
matum to  Serbia  to  the  declarations  of  war,  abun- 
dantly demonstrate  that  she  made  earnest,  repeated, 


THE  WORLD  WAR  327 

and  varied  efforts  to  bring  about  a  peaceful  solution 
of  the  problems  that  had  been  so  suddenly  thrust 
forward.  She  was  wedded  to  no  particular  scheme 
or  formula  and  invited  Germany  to  make  suggestions 
that  might  effect  the  adjustment,  if  dissatisfied  with 
hers.  But  despite  her  efforts  a  war  had  come  in- 
volving at  least  four  large  states,  Austria,  Russia, 
Germany,  and  France,  and  one  small  state,  Serbia. 
Would  the  conflagration  spread?  What  would 
England  do? 

It  was  certainly  not  for  her  interest  that  France 
should  be  conquered  by  Germany,  as  that  would  re- 
duce France  to  the  position  of  a  satellite  and  would 
immensely  augment  the  power  and  prestige  of  Ger- 
many. Moreover,  England  was  bound  in  honor  to 
prevent  any  attack  upon  the  Atlantic  seacoast  of 
France,  as,  since  1912,  she  had  had  a  naval  agreement 
with  France  whereby  the  French  fleet  was  concen- 
trated in  the  Mediterranean  in  order  that  England 
might  keep  larger  naval  forces  in  the  home  waters. 
It  seems  probable  that  England  would  have  been 
drawn  into  the  war  necessarily  if  France  was  attacked, 
which  was,  of  course,  the  purpose  of  Germany.  But 
her  participation  was  rendered  inevitable  by  Ger- 
many's attack  upon  Belgium. 

Three  of  the  small  states  of  Europe,  Belgium,  Lux- 
emburg, and  Switzerland,  have  been  by  international 
agreements  declared  neutral  territory  forever.  By 
these  agreements  th^  countries  concerned  should 
never  make  war,  nor  should  they  ever  be  attacked. 
The  powers  that  signed  the  treaties  bound  them- 
selves to  respect  and  preserve  that  neutrality.     The 


328  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

treaty  guaranteeing  the  neutralization  of  Belgium  was 
signed  by  England,  France,  Prussia,  Austria,  and  Rus- 
sia. For  over  eighty  years  that  obligation  had  been 
scrupulously  observed.  Now,  on  August  2,  Germany 
sent  an  ultimatum  to  Belgium,  demanding  that  she 
allow  the  German  armies  to  cross  her  territory,  prom- 
ising to  evacuate  it  after  peace  was  concluded,  and 
stating  that,  if  she  refused,  her  fate  would  be  deter- 
mined by  the  fortunes  of  war.  Belgium  replied  that 
she  had  always  been  faithful  to  her  international  obli- 
gations, that  the  attack  upon  her  independence  would 
constitute  a  flagrant  violation  of  international  law, 
that  she  would  not  sacrifice  her  honor  and  at  the  same 
time  be  recreant  to  her  duty  toward  Europe,  but  that 
her  army  would  resist  the  invader  to  the  utmost  of 
its  ability. 

As  Austria's  ultimatum  of  July  23  meant  the  anni- 
hiliation  of  the  independence  of-one  small  state,  Ser- 
bia, Germany's  ultimatum  of  August  2  meant  the  an- 
nihilation of  the  independence  of  another  small  state, 
Belgium.  Germany's  action  was  the  baser  and  the 
more  dishonorable,  as  she  had  promised  to  respect  the 
neutrality  of  the  country  which  she  was  now  about 
to  destroy. 

The  reason  for  this  action  was  that  the  easiest 
way  for  German  armies  to  get  into  France  was  over 
Belgian  soil.  Germany  intended  to  crush  France  as 
rapidly  as  possible,  then  to  turn  upon  Russia  and 
crush  her.  The  invasion  of  France  direct  from  Ger- 
many would  necessarily  be  slower,  if  possible  at  all, 
as  that  frontier  was  strongly  fortified.  The  of^cial 
Statement    of    the    Chancellor,    Bethmann-Hollweg, 


THE  WORLD  WAR  329 

made  in  the  Reichstag  on  August  4,  declared  that 
Germany  was  acting  in  self-defense :  "  Necessity 
knows  no  law.  Our  troops  have  occupied  Luxem- 
burg and  have  perhaps  already  entered  on  Belgian 
soil.  Gentlemen,  this  is  a  breach  of  international 
law.  The  French  Government  has,  it  is  true,  notified 
Brussels  that  it  would  respect  the  neutrality  of  Bel- 
gium as  long  as  the  enemy  respected  it.  But  we 
know  that  France  stood  ready  for  an  invasion.  France 
could  wait,  we  could  not.  A  French  attack  upon  our 
flank  in  the  lower  Rhine  might  have  been  disastrous. 
Thus  we  have  been  obliged  to  ignore  the  just  pro- 
tests of  the  governments  of  Luxemburg  and  Belgium. 
The  injustice,  I  speak  frankly,  the  injustice  that  we 
are  committing  we  will  endeavor  to  make  good  as 
soon  as  our  military  aims  have  been  attained.  Any- 
body who  is  threatened  as  we  are  threatened  and  is 
fighting  for  his  highest  possessions  can  think  only  of 
one  thing,  how  he  is  to  hack  his  way  through."  Thus 
the  official,  authoritative  spokesman  of  Germany  pro- 
nounced her  own  act  unjust,  thereby  proclaiming  the 
faithfulness  of  Belgium  to  all  her  obligations,  admit- 
ted that  Germany  was  doing  Belgium  a  wrong,  and 
that  the  action  was  in  defiance  of  the  law  of  nations. 
It  was  justified  by  necessity,  he  said. 

A  nation  of  sixty-five  millions  attacked  a  nation 
of  seven  millions,  whose  neutrality  it  had  sworn  to 
maintain,  because,  as  the  German  Secretary  of  State, 
Jagow,  said  on  that  same  August  4,  with  frankness, 
"  they  had  to  advance  into  France  by  the  quickest 
and  easiest  way,  so  as  to  be  able  to  get  well  ahead  with 
their  operations  and  endeavor  to  strike  some  decisive 


330  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

blow  as  early  as  possible.  It  was  a  matter  of  life  and 
death  for  them." 

England  could  correctly  assert  that  she  had  worked 
for  peace  **  up  to  the  last  moment,  and  beyond  the 
last  moment."  Now  she  entered  the  war  because 
she  had  vital  interests  in  the  independence  of  Bel- 
gium, and  because  of  her  explicit  treaty  obligations. 
For  hundreds  of  years  her  policy  had  been  to  prevent 
the  control  of  those  coasts  from  being  a  menace  to  her 
own  coast  across  the  narrow  channel  as  they  would 
be  in  the  hands  of  a  strong  military  power.  Over  this 
question  England  had  fought  or  acted  repeatedly  for 
centuries  against  the  Spaniards,  against  the  French; 
now  it  was  to  be  against  the  Germans.  That  in  pro- 
tecting her  vital  interests  she  would  also  be  keeping 
her  solemn  promises  and  defending  a  small  and  peace- 
ful state  against  the  wanton  aggression  of  a  ruthless 
and  mighty  mihtary  power,  engaged,  according  to  its 
own  admission,  in  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  law  of 
nations,  was  to  her  vast  moral  advantage  in  securing 
the  spontaneous  sympathy  and  support  of  her  own 
people  and  widespread  approval  beyond  her  borders. 

On  the  23d  of  July,  1914,  there  was  a  dull  mid- 
summer peace  in  Europe.  By  August  4  seven  nations 
were  at  war.  The  responsibility  for  this  tragic,  mon- 
strous, unnecessary  crime  against  civiHzation,  against 
humanity,  was  lightly  assumed.  The  situation  was 
created  by  the  authorized  heads  of  various  states. 
Any  power  that  in  that  crisis  showed  a  willingness 
to  delay,  to  negotiate,  to  confer,  was  working  in  the 
interest  of  peace.  Any  power  that  declined  to  do 
this,  that  adopted  a  peremptory  attitude,  that  issped 


THE  WORLD  WAR  33 1 

ultimatums  with  incredibly  short  time  limits,  hastened 
the  appalling  entanglement  and  was  ready  for  war, 
whether  it  desired  or  intended  it  or  not. 

The  opinion  of  the  outside  world  as  to  where  that 
responsibility  lies  has  been  overwhelmingly  expressed. 
That  opinion  was  shared  by  a  state  that  had  for  thirty- 
two  years  been  the  ally  of  Austria  and  Germany  and 
was  an  ally  in  August,  1914.  When  asked  on  August 
I,  by  the  German  ambassador,  what  were  Italy's  in- 
tentions, the  Italian  Government  replied  through  its 
minister  of  foreign  afifairs  that  "  as  the  war  under- 
taken by  Austria  was  aggressive  and  did  not  fall  with- 
in the  purely  defensive  character  of  the  Triple  Alli- 
ance, particularly  in  view  of  the  consequences  which 
might  result  from  it  according  to  the  declaration  of 
the  German  ambassador,  Italy  would  not  be  able  to 
take  part  in  the  war." 

The  War  in  1914 

Austria's  determination  to  wreak  her  wrath  upon 
Serbia,  to  punish,  humiliate,  and  master  that  small 
but  independent  and  successful  state,  had  led  straight, 
and  with  incredible  swiftness,  to  an  appalling  issue. 
Five  great  nations,  Austria-Hungary,  Germany,  Rus- 
sia, France,  and  England,  and  two  small  nations,  Ser- 
bia and  Belgium,  had  passed,  within  a  space  of  twelve 
momentous  days,  from  a  state  of  peace  to  one  of  war. 
From  the  Ural  Mountains  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  from 
the  North  Sea  to  the  Mediterranean,  hundreds  of  mil- 
lions of  men  found  themselves  caught  in  the  meshes 
of  a  gigantic  conflict,  whose  cost  in  human  life  and 


332  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

happiness  and  treasure  must  inevitably  be  tremen- 
dous. The  world  was  stunned  by  the  criminal  levity 
with  which  Austria-Hungary  and  Germany  had  cre- 
ated this  hideous  situation. 

The  sinister  and  brutal  challenge  was,  however, 
accepted  immediately  and  with  iron  resolution  by 
those  who  had  done  their  utmost  during  those  twelve 
days  to  avert  the  catastrophe,  and  not  only  great 
powers  like  France  and  England,  but  small  ones, 
like  Belgium  and  Serbia,  never  hesitated,  but  re- 
solved to  do  or  die.  That  the  contest  was  not  merely 
a  material  one,  but  that  the  most  precious  moral  and 
spiritual  interests  were  involved,  was  clearly  seen 
and  stated  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  war  by  the 
responsible  statesmen  of  France  and  England.  In 
those  early  days  Mr.  Asquith,  prime  minister  of 
Great  Britain,  expressed  the  common  resolution  of  the 
Western  powers  when  he  declared :  "  We  shall  never 
sheathe  the  sword  which  we  have  not  lightly  drawn 
until  Belgium  recovers  in  full  measure  all  and  more 
than  all  that  she  has  sacrificed,  until  France  is  ade- 
quately secured  against  the  menace  of  aggression, 
until  the  rights  of  the  smaller  nationalities  of  Europe 
are  placed  upon  an  unassailable  foundation,  and  until 
the  military  domination  of  Prussia  is  wholly  and 
finally  destroyed."  A  cause  dedicated  to  such  aims 
as  those  was  worthy  of  the  supreme  sacrifice  it  would 
pitilessly  exact. 

Why  these  references  to  Belgium  and  France?  Be- 
cause, in  the  military  plans  of  Germany,  these  two 
were  to  be  overrun  and  conquered  first,  then  Rus- 
sia, and  then  the  dominance  of  Europe  by  Germany 


THE  WORLD  WAR  sss 

would  be  achieved  and  rendered  unassailable.  After 
that  let  the  world  look  out.  It  would  receive  its 
orders  from  Berlin  and  it  would  know  full  well  the 
meaning  of  disobedience. 

Germany  had  demanded  free  passage  for  her  troops 
through  Belgium.  King  Albert,  one  of  the  unsullied 
heroes  of  a  war  rich  in  heroes,  had  at  that  critical 
moment  embodied  the  spirit  of  his  people  and  had 
added  luster  to  the  name  of  Belgium  forever  when, 
in  reply  to  the  arrogant  demand,  he  announced  that 
"  the  Belgian  Government  is  firmly  resolved  to  repel 
with  all  the  means  in  its  power  every  attack  upon 
its  rights."  Then  the  thunder-cloud  broke.  The 
mighty  German  army  burst  upon  the  land,  resolved 
to  get  to  Paris  by  the  shortest  route,  the  valley  of 
the  Meuse.  The  fortress  of  Liege  stood  in  the  way. 
It  was  bombarded  by  powerful  artillery  and  forced 
to  surrender  on  August  7.  Brussels  was  occupied 
on  August  20.  But  the  fall  of  Liege  did  not  clear 
the  route  to  France.  Namur  stood  in  the  way  and 
here  the  Belgians  were  aided  by  the  French,  and 
by  the  British,  hurrying  to  the  scene  their  "  con- 
temptible little  army,"  as  the  Kaiser  is  said  to  have 
called  it.  Namur  was  occupied  on  August  22.  Mons 
was  next  attacked  and  the  French  and  English  were 
compelled  to  begin  a  retreat.  Withdraw  they  must 
or  the  German  armies  would  envelop  them  and  a 
disaster  like  that  of  Sedan  in  1870  might  result.  The 
great  retreat  from  Mons  southward  continued  day 
after  day,  night  after  night,  rapid,  harrowing,  critical, 
incessant,  annihilation  constantly  threatening.  City 
after  city  in  northern  France  fell  into  the  hands  of 


334  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

the  Germans,  who  advanced  to  within  fifteen  miles 
of  Paris.  The  Government  of  France  was  removed 
to  Bordeaux.  The  completion  of  German  victory 
seemed  at  hand.  August  was  a  month  of  gloom 
for  the  Allies. 

Then  General  Joffre,  commander  of  the  French 
armies,  issued  his  famous  order,  stating  that  the  re- 
treat was  over.  To  his  generals  he  sent  this  mes- 
sage :  "  The  hour  has  come  to  hold  fast  and  to  let 
yourselves  be  killed  rather  than  to  yield."  And  to 
the  army  JofTre  issued  this :  "  At  the  moment  when 
we  are  about  to  engage  in  battle  it  is  imperative  that 
everyone  should  remember  that  the  time  has  passed 
for  looking  backward;  every  effort  must  be  devoted 
to  attacking  and  repulsing  the  enemy.  Troops  that 
can  no  longer  advance,  must,  at  all  cost,  keep  the 
ground  they  have  won  and  be  shot  down  where  they 
stand  rather  than  retreat.  In  the  present  circum- 
stances no  weakness  can  be  tolerated." 

The  decisive  moment  had  arrived.  There  was  no 
faltering,  but  the  whole  French  army  was  nerved  to 
supreme  effort.  From  September  5  to  September 
10,  along  a  line  of  more  than  a  hundred  miles  from 
Paris  to  Verdun,  raged  the  famous  Battle  of  the 
Marne,  one  of  the  decisive  battles  of  the  world's  his- 
tory. The  spirit  in  which  these  men  fought  was 
typified  in  General  Foch,  one  of  Joffre's  subordinates, 
who  at  a  critical  moment  telegraphed  to  his  chief: 
"  My  right  is  in  retreat;  my  center  is  yielding.  Situa- 
tion excellent.  I  shall  attack."  And  attack  he  did, 
with  great  success. 

The  Germans  were  defeated.    Their  terrific,  crush- 


THE  WORLD  WAR  335 

ing  blow,  intended  to  eliminate  the  French  from  the 
war,  had  failed.  They  retired  as  precipitately  as  they 
had  advanced,  the  French  at  their  heels.  Only 
when  they  were  across  the  Aisne  and  in  trenches  al- 
ready prepared  for  them  were  they  safe.  At  the  Bat- 
tle of  the  Marne  France  had  saved  herself  and 
Europe  and  the  world. 

After  the  Battle  of  the  Marne  the  Allies  sought  to 
break  through  the  German  lines  along  the  Aisne,  but 
were  unsuccessful.  Thereupon  there  ensued  a  race 
to  the  sea,  an  extension  of  the  trenches  northward  to 
the  English  Channel.  The  Germans  overran  the 
western  part  of  Belgium,  seized  Antwerp  (October 
lo)  and  Ostend,  and  tried  to  get  to  Dunkirk  and 
Calais,  but  were  arrested  at  the  Yser  River.  By 
the  end  of  October  the  opposing  sides  were  en- 
trenched against  each  other  all  the  way  from  Nieu- 
port  to  Switzerland.  The  "  war  of  positions,"  which 
was  to  last  with  only  minor  changes  down  to  March, 
1 918,  had  begun. 

As  the  results  of  all  these  events  the  Germans  were 
in  possession  of  a  large  area  of  northeastern  France 
and  of  nearly  all  of  Belgium.  The  possession  of  this 
territory  greatly  augmented  their  power  to  make  war, 
for  it  carried  with  it  ninety  per  cent  of  the  iron  ore 
of  France,  and  fifty  per  cent  of  the  coal  of  France, 
and  the  harbors  of  the  Belgian  coast  became  favora- 
ble bases  for  the  submarine  warfare  adopted  later. 

The  Germans  had  not  only  won  great  and  rich 
territories  in  a  two  months'  campaign :  they  had  also 
won  undying  hatred  and  a  moral  loathing  so  gen- 
eral and  so  intense  that  it  is  hard,  if  not  impossible, 


336  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

to  find  its  equal  in  human  history.  From  the  moment 
they  stepped  upon  Belgian  territory  they  trampled 
under  foot  all  considerations  of  humanity,  of  de- 
cency, of  honor.  No  savage  ever  tortured  a  helpless 
victim  with  a  greater  display  of  heartlessness  and 
cruelty  than  Germany  showed  in  her  treatment  of 
Belgium.  Not  only  were  conscienceless  pillage  and 
systematic  looting  the  order  of  the  day,  not  only 
were  towns  and  cities  fined  and  mulcted  of  enormous 
sums  of  money,  not  only  were  villages  fired,  not  only 
were  works  of  art  and  public  monuments  destroyed, 
but  great  numbers  of  civilians,  men,  women,  and  lit- 
tle children,  were  murdered  in  cold  blood  or  sub- 
jected to  treatment  worse  than  death.  The  Germans 
killed  prisoners,  they  poisoned  wells,  they  bombarded 
undefended  towns  and  hospitals.  It  is  no  wonder 
that  Belgium's  most  distinguished  poet  and  man  of 
letters,  Maurice  Maeterlinck,  called  the  German  "  the 
foulest  invader  that  the  world  has  ever  borne."  A 
prosperous  and  peaceful  people  was  ruined,  and 
threatened  with  starvation  from  which  it  was  only 
saved  by  the  charity  of  the  world.  The  martyrdom 
of  Belgium  is  the  deep  damnation  of  modern  mili- 
taristic Germany.  The  multitudinous  seas  would  not 
suffice  to  wash  out  the  abysmal  guilt. 

Such  was  the  course  of  events  in  western  Europe 
after  the  fateful  August  4,  1914-  Meanwhile  events 
were  occurring  in  the  east  and  the  southeast.  Rus- 
sia, mobilizing  far  more  rapidly  than  the  Germans 
had  supposed  she  could,  invaded  East  Prussia  about 
the  middle  of  August,  gaining  several  victories. 
The  Germans  were  forced  to  withdraw  some  of  their 


338  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

troops  from  the  western  front  to  meet  this  unex- 
pected menace,  and  this  contributed  to  the  German 
defeat  at  the  Marne.  The  victories  of  the  Russians 
were  short-lived,  for  under  the  command  of  General 
von  Hindenburg  the  Germans  defeated  them  disas- 
trously in  the  battle  of  Tannenberg  (August  26- 
September  l,  1914).  Hindenburg  was  henceforth  the 
idol  of  Germany. 

The  Russians  were  more  successful  against  Aus- 
tria. Invading  the  Austrian  province  of  Galicia,  they 
captured  Tarnopol  and  Lemberg  and  Jaroslav  and 
began  the  siege  of  Przemysl,  which  surrendered  in 
March,  191 5.  An  invasion  of  Hungary  was  intended 
as  the  next  step. 

As  Austria  was  thus  fully  occupied  with  Russia, 
the  Serbians  were  able  to  expel  the  Austrian  armies 
which  had  invaded  their  country  (December,  1914). 

Other  events  of  those  months  of  1914,  which  must 
be  chronicled,  are :  the  entrance  of  little  Montenegro 
into  the  war  out  of  sympathy  for  Serbia,  the  M(5n- 
tenegrins  being  Serbians  by  race  (August  7) ;  and  the 
entrance  of  Turkey  into  the  war  on  the  side  of  the 
Central  Powers  (November  3).  The  latter  was  an 
event  of  considerable  importance.  Though  European 
Turkey  had  been  greatly  reduced  as  a  result  of  the 
Balkan  Wars,  the  Ottoman  Empire  was  still  exten- 
sive, including  Asia  Minor,  Armenia,  Mesopotamia, 
Syria,  Palestine,  and  Arabia,  in  all  over  seven  hun- 
dred thousand  square  miles,  or  an  area  more  than 
three  times  as  large  as  the  German  Empire,  and 
with  a  population  estimated  at  twenty-one  million. 
Its  capital,  Constantinople,  was  a  city  of  over  a  mil- 


THE  WORLD  WAR  339 

lion  inhabitants,  and  its  location  incomparable,  lying, 
as  it  does,  at  the  point  where  Europe  and  Asia  meet, 
and  barring  the  entrance  to  and  the  exit  from  the 
Black  Sea,  that  is,  from  southern  Russia,  The  Sultan 
ruled  over  a  most  motley  collection  of  peoples,  over 
Turks,  a  minority  of  the  whole  population,  and  over 
Arabs,  Greeks,  Syrians,  Kurds,  Circassians,  Armeni- 
ans, Jews,  and  numerous  other  races.  The  only  unity 
that  these  races  knew  was  to  be  found  in  the  oppres- 
sion they  all  experienced  from  their  Government, 
which  was  an  unrestrained  tyrrany.  The  Govern- 
ment was  strongly  pro-German.  Enver  Pasha  was 
minister  of  war,  a  man  who  had  been  a  military  at- 
tache in  Berlin,  and  had  formed  the  most  intimate 
relations  with  the  German  military  circles.  During 
most  of  his  reign  the  Emperor  of  Germany  had  striven 
successfully  to  build  up  German  influence  in  Tur- 
key, and  by  1914  Turkey  was  the  willing  and  eager 
tool  of  Germany,  her  army  largely  ofHcered  by  Ger- 
mans. The  expected  therefore  occurred  when  the 
Turkish  Government  permitted  two  German  warships 
to  enter  the  Bosporus,  whence  they  sailed  into  the 
Black  Sea  and  bombarded  Russian  ports.  Russia 
thereupon  declared  war  upon  Turkey,  November  3, 
1914,  and  England  and  France  immediately  did  the 
same. 

Turkey's  entrance  into  the  war  was  intended  to 
be,  and  was,  a  threat  at  the  3alkan  states  and  at  the 
British  Empire,  that  is  at  India  and  Egypt.  It  in- 
volved Asia  and  Africa  in  the  war,  Mesopotamia, 
Syria,  Palestine,  Egypt.  An  immediate  consequence 
was  the  dethronement  of  the  Khedive  of  Egypt,  who 


340  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

was  plotting  with  the  Sultan  to  expel  the  British. 
Great  Britain  declared  Egypt  a  protectorate  of  the 
British  Empire  and  appointed  the  uncle  of  the  de- 
throned Khedive  in  his  place,  with  the  title  of  Sultan. 
Turkish  attempts  to  invade  Egypt  and  get  control 
of  the  Suez  Canal,  thus  cutting  England's  connection 
with  India,  were  frustrated  early  in  the  following 
year   (February,   1915). 

Still  another  power  entered  the  war  almost  at  the 
beginning,  Japan  (August  23,  1914).  Japan  had  two 
reasons  for  participating.  One  was  loyalty  to  her 
alliance  with  Great  Britain,  which,  concluded  orig- 
inally in  1902,  had  been  renewed  in  1905  and  191 1. 
That  treaty  had  been  of  the  greatest  service  to  Japan, 
increasing  her  international  prestige  and  guarantee- 
ing her  territorial  rights.  It  was  a  defensive  alliance, 
each  side  promising  the  other  support  in  certain  con- 
tingencies in  case  of  war. 

Such  a  case  having  arisen,  England  now  applied 
to  Japan  for  assistance  in  protecting  her  trade  in 
the  East,  and  Japan  loyally  responded.  But  that  pro- 
tection could  not  be  secured  as  long  as  Germany  held 
her  strong  naval  base  at  Kiauchau.  The  Japanese 
knew  how  Germany  had  acquired  that  base,  seven- 
teen years  before,  after  having  in  conjunction  with 
Russia  and  France  forced  Japan  to  relinquish  the 
fruits  of  her  victory  in  her  war  with  China.  They 
therefore  took  pleasure  in  requiting  this  injury  and 
in  expressing  their  demand  in  the  same  language  that 
Germany  had  used  to  them  twenty  years  before.  On 
August  17,  1914,  an  ultimatum  was  issued  by  Japan 
to  Germany  demanding  that  she  withdraw  her  fleet 


THE  WORLD  WAR  341 

and  surrender  Kiauchau  as  necessary  "  to  the  peace 
of  the  Far  East  "  and  requesting  an  answer  by  Au- 
gust 23.  Germany  sent  no  answer  to  this  ultimatum, 
but  the  Kaiser  telegraphed  to  Kiauchau :  "  It  would 
shame  me  more  to  surrender  Kiauchau  to  the  Jap- 
anese than  Berlin  to  the  Russians."  On  August  23, 
war  was  declared  by  Japan  against  Germany,  and  by 
the  middle  of  November  she  had  conquered  the  Ger- 
man colony.  From  that  time  on  until  1918  her  partici- 
pation in  the  war  was  slight.  She  was,  however,  one 
of  the  AlHes,  having  agreed  with  England,  France, 
and  Russia  not  to  make  a  separate  peace. 

Meanwhile  another  aspect  of  the  war  was  being 
played  upon  the  high  seas.  The  immense  importance 
to  the  Allies  of  the  naval  preponderance  of  Great 
Britain  was  shown  from  the  first  days  of  the  war  and 
has  been  made  each  day  increasingly  apparent.  The 
British  won  a  naval  victory  near  Helgoland  in  Au- 
gust, the  Germans  won  a  naval  victory  off  the  coast 
of  Chili  in  November,  which  was  avenged  by  England 
in  a  complete  defeat  of  a  German  fleet  off  the  Falk- 
land Islands  (December  8).  The  total  result  of  these 
events  was  the  sweeping  of  German  naval  vessels 
from  the  high  seas  and  the  bottling  up  of  the  main 
German  fleet  in  the  Kiel  Canal;  also  the  sweeping 
of  German  merchant  shipping  from  the  ocean.  Now 
and  then  a  German  raider  might  still  get  out  and  do 
damage.  The  submarine  danger  was  as  yet  not  se- 
rious. Owing  to  Great  Britain's  practical  control  of 
the  great  water  routes  of  communication  the  trans- 
port of  troops  to  the  scene  of  battle  from  England, 
Canada,  Australia,  South  Africa,  and  the  transport 


342  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  munitions  and  merchandise,  and  the  exchanges  of 
commerce,  could  go  on,  in  the  main,  unimpeded.  The 
importance  of  this  fact  cannot  be  exaggerated.  It 
enabled  the  Allies  vigorously  to  prosecute  the  war, 
and  it  kept  industrial  and  commercial  life  active,  a 
source  not  only  of  comfort  and  convenience,  but  of 
wealth,  and  wealth  was  necessary  to  the  maintenance 
in  full  and  increasing  vigor  of  armies  and  navies  and 
all  the  various  war  services. 

Thus  we  see  how  crowded  with  decisive  events 
were  those  months  from  August  to  December,  1914. 
The  flame  so  lightly  and  joyously  ignited  by  Austria 
and  by  Germany  was  spreading  rapidly  and  porten- 
tously. By  the  end  of  that  year  ten  nations  were  at 
war,  Austria-Hungary,  Germany,  and  Turkey  on  the 
one  side,  Serbia,  Russia,  France,  Belgium,  Great  Brit- 
ain, Montenegro,  and  Japan  on  the  other.  Two  great 
nations,  the  United  States  and  Italy,  and  many  small 
ones,  had  declared  their  neutrahty.  Whether  they 
would  be  able  to  maintain  it,  in  a  war  which,  as  was 
already  clear,  affected  every  nation,  not  only  in  its 
economic  life,  but  in  its  intellectual,  moral,  and  spir- 
itual outlook,  remained  to  be  seen. 

The  War  in  191 5 

The  year  1914  closed  with  the  Allies  holding  the 
Germans  on  the  western  front,  having  defeated  them 
at  the  Battle  of  the  Marne.  But  the  Germans  had 
conquered  all  but  a  small  section  of  Belgium,  had 
conquered  northeastern  France,  and  had  dug  them- 
selves in  from  the  North  Sea  to  Switzerland.     At- 


THE  WORLD  WAR  343 

tempts  on  the  part  of  the  Allies  to  dislodge  them 
and  to  break  through  the  line  were  made  repeatedly 
in  1915.  At  the  battle  of  Neuve  Chapelle  the  Eng- 
lish under  Sir  John  French  attacked  over  a  front  of 
a  little  more  than  four  miles.  The  attack  was  pre- 
ceded by  the  most  terrific  artillery  engagement  ever 
known  in  warfare.  On  that  narrow  front  more  than 
three  hundred  British  cannon  opened  fire  on  March 
10.  After  they  had  prepared  the  way  the  infantry 
pressed  forward,  gaining  a  mile.  On  the  two  follow- 
ing days  the  Germans  delivered  repeated  counter- 
attacks, but  without  success.  The  British  held  their 
new  front,  but  the  casualties  were  extremely  heavy. 
A  mere  local  dent  had  been  made  in  the  German  line. 
The  battle  was  important  as  showing  sharply  how  tre- 
mendous must  be  the  efifort  and  the  sacrifice  if  the 
Germans  were  to  be  driven  out  of  France  and  Bel- 
gium. Both  England  and  Germany  lost  more  in 
killed,  wounded,  and  captured  than  the  English  and 
Prussians  had  lost  in  the  battle  of  Waterloo. 

From  April  22  to  April  26  occurred  a  similar  bat- 
tle on  a  narrow  front,  this  time  begun  by  the  Ger- 
mans. Here  gas  was  used  for  the  first  time.  The 
French  line  collapsed.  Those  who  survived  the  gas 
retreated  three  miles.  The  battle  is  famous  for  this 
new  feature  of  warfare,  and  for  the  remarkable  cool- 
ness, heroism,  and  spirit  of  sacrifice  of  the  Canadians. 
"  On  the  Canadians  the  storm  broke  with  its  full  force 
and  Canadian  militia  repeated  the  glories  of  British 
regulars  from  Mons  to  the  Marne.  In  British  im- 
perial history  the  second  battle  of  Ypres  will  be 
memorable."    But  it  broke  no  line  and  like  the  battle 


344  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  Neuve  Chapelle  it  was  mere  "  nibbling,"  a  word 
that  now  passed  into  current  use  to  describe  the  char- 
acter of  the  fighting. 

All  through  the  summer  of  191 5  there  was  only- 
desultory  fighting  on  the  western  front,  broken  by 
special  attempts  to  break  the  line  which  would  not 
break.  One  incident  of  importance  was  the  relieving 
of  Sir  John  French  and  the  appointment  of  Gen- 
eral Haig  as  commander-in-chief  of  the  British  arm- 
ies. The  issue  was  to  prove  that  England  had  at  last 
found  her  leader. 

Other  disappointments  were  reserved  for  the  Allies 
during  that  bitter  year  of  1915.  Germany's  original 
plan  of  campaign  had  been,  as  we  have  seen,  first  to 
crush  France  and  to  eliminate  her  from  the  war,  then 
to  turn  eastward  and  eliminate  Russia,  after  which 
she  would  dictate  whatever  peace  she  chose  to  Eu- 
rope. The  Battle  of  the  Marne  and  the  solid  line  of 
the  French  and  English  from  Nieuport  in  Belgium 
to  Switzerland  had  blocked  this  plan.  France  was 
not  easily  to  be  eliminated.  Therefore  the  Germans 
adopted  a  new  plan,  namely,  to  crush  and  eliminate 
Russia,  then  to  turn  westward,  settle  accounts  with 
France,  and  bring  England  to  her  knees.  Of  course 
while  attending  to  their  eastern  enemy,  they  must 
hold  their  western  front  tight,  and  even  attack,  if 
the  opportunity  ofifered.  There  must  be  no  suspen- 
sion or  relaxation  of  effort  anywhere,  but  the  main 
emphasis  must  be  put  upon  the  eastern  campaign, 
as  it  was  the  more  inviting  and  promised  the  more 
immediate  gains.  There  was  an  additional  argument 
in  favor  of  making  the  main  effort  in  the  east.     Hin- 


THE  WORLD  WAR  345 

denburg,  the  new  idol  of  Germany,  from  long  years 
of  study  was  minutely  acquainted  with  all  the  nat- 
ural features  of  that  theater  of  war.  What  he  had 
done  at  Tannenberg  he  could  do  again,  and  again, 
perhaps. 

Therefore  eastward  the  path  of  empire  took  its 
way.  The  developments  there  were  destined  to  ex- 
ceed the  wildest  imagination  of  the  Germans.  After 
Tannenberg  the  Russians,  recovering,  resumed  the 
offensive,  and  again  invaded  East  Prussia,  whereupon 
Hindenburg  fell  upon  them,  administering  a  crush- 
ing defeat  in  the  Battle  of  the  Mazurian  Lakes  (Feb- 
ruary 12,  1915).  The  Russians  lost  in  killed  and 
wounded  a  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  and  a  hun- 
dred thousand  of  them  were  taken  prisoners. 

This  was  a  mere  beginning.  East  Prussia  was 
freed  from  the  presence  of  the  Russians.  But  they 
had  overrun  Galicia,  a  northern  province  of  Austria. 
They  must  be  expelled,  and  then  no  foreign  soldiers 
would  stand  on  the  soil  of  the  Central  Empires.  More- 
over the  war  should  be  carried  straight  over  into 
Russia.  The  tables  must  be  turned,  and  turned  they 
were  in  a  memorable  fashion.  All  through  the  sum- 
mer, from  April  to  August,  a  mammoth  drive  of  Ger- 
mans and  Austrians  combined,  under  Hindenburg  and 
Mackensen,  went  on  over  a  wide  front.  Victory  fol- 
lowed victory  in  rapid  succession.  The  Russians  were 
driven  out  of  Galicia.  Przemysl  fell  on  June  2;  Lem- 
berg  on  June  22.  Russian  Poland  was  invaded.  War- 
saw, its  capital,  was  captured  on  August  5.  All  of 
Poland  was  conquered  and  Lithuania  and  Courland 
were  overrun.     When  the  campaign  was  over  the 


346  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Russian  line  was  still  intact,  but  it  had  been  forced 
far  back  and  now  ran  from  Riga,  in  the  north,  to 
Czernowitz,  in  the  south,  near  the  northern  border 
of  Roumania. 

It  was  a  notable  summer's  work.  Mackensen  took 
his  place  beside  Hindenburg,  as  a  national  hero.  The 
process  of  Russian  disintegration  which  two  years 
later  was  to  lead  to  the  shameful  Treaty  of  Brest- 
Litovsk  had  begun.  Russia  had  lost  65,000  square 
miles  of  territory,  a  territory  larger  than  New  Eng- 
land. The  military  statistics  of  this  war  are  uncer- 
tain, being  subject  to  no  control  outside  ofificial  circles, 
but  it  is  said  that  Russian  losses  in  killed  and  wounded 
were  a  million  two  hundred  thousand  and  nearly  a  mil- 
lion in  prisoners.  The  Russian  commander.  Grand 
Duke  Nicholas,  was  removed  from  chief  command  and 
sent  to  the  Caucasus.  So  much  for  the  eastern  front. 
As  1914  had  seen  the  Germans  seizing  Belgium  and 
northern  and  eastern  France,  191 5  had  seen  them 
seizing  a  large  part  of  Russia.  The  Germans  were 
entitled  to  the  elation  which  they  experienced  and 
which  they  volubly  expressed. 

The  AlHes  suffered  another  notable  discomfiture 
that  year,  1915,  and  a  serious  diminution  of  prestige, 
this  time  in  the  extreme  southeastern  point  of  Europe. 
They  attempted  the  capture  of  Constantinople,  the 
capital  of  the  Turkish  Empire,  a  very  difficult  thing 
to  achieve  owing  to  topographical  reasons.  Could 
they  accomplish  this,  then  the  Balkan  states  not 
yet  in  the  war  would  probably  enter  it  on  the  side  of 
the  Allies,  and  with  that  alignment  Austria  could  be 
attacked  and  invaded  from  the  south  and  east;  also 


THE  WORLD  WAR  347 

Turkey  might  be  compelled  to  sue  for  peace  or  at  any 
rate  would  be  put  on  the  defensive.  And  could  the 
Allies  control  the  Dardanelles  and  the  Bosporus,  they 
could  secure  a  connection  with  Russia  through  the 
Black  Sea.  They  could  thus  send  to  Russia  the  war 
supplies  she  so  greatly  needed  and  could  receive  from 
her  the  food  supplies  she  produced. 

In  February  and  March  a  British  and  French  fleet 
tried  to  force  the  Dardanelles.  Penetrating  the  chan- 
nel as  far  as  the  "  Narrows,"  they  could  get  no  farther. 
The  shores  were  powerfully  fortified,  and  in  the  bat- 
tle between  the  forts  and  the  ships  of  war,  several 
of  the  latter  were  destroyed.  The  fleet  was  forced 
to  withdraw.  Constantinople  could  not  be  reached 
that  way.  Next  an  attempt  was  made  by  land.  After 
a  costly  delay  Anglo-French  troops,  reinforced  by 
troops  from  Australia  and  New  Zealand,  called  "  An- 
zacs,"  ^  who  had  been  brought  up  by  way  of  the 
Red  Sea,  landed  on  the  peninsula  of  Gallipoli,  Sir 
Ian  Hamilton  in  command.  But  the  Turks  had  had 
their  warning  and,  under  the  command  of  a  German 
general,  Liman  von  Sanders,  were  ready  for  them. 
The  landing  was  effected  only  at  a  heavy  cost  and 
the  positions  which  the  Allies  confronted  proved  im- 
pregnable. A  flanking  movement  from  Suvla  Bay 
likewise  proved  unsuccessful.  The  Allies  held  on  all 
through  the  year,  but  they  were  foiled,  and  in  De- 
cember they  abandoned  the  attempt.  Their  losses 
had  been  enormous  and  nothing  had  been  accom- 
plished, save  that  possibly  the   expedition  had  kept 

*  A  composite  word  made  by  the  initial  letters  of  the  words  Aus- 
tralian New  Zealand  Army  Corps. 


348  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

the  Turks  from  pressing  any  attack  upon  the  Suez 
Canal.  The  reaction  of  this  conspicuous  and  com- 
plete failure  upon  the  hesitating  Balkan  states,  Bul- 
garia and  Greece,  was  disastrous.  They,  hitherto 
neutral,  began  to  think  that  the  Central  Powers  would 
ultimately  be  victorious  and  that  it  would  be  more 
prudent  as  well  as  pleasanter  to  be  on  the  winning 
side. 

Bulgaria's  dislike  of  Serbia,  Roumania,  and  Greece 
was  intense;  she  resented  bitterly  the  Treaty  of  Bu- 
charest ^  and  only  awaited  a  favorable  opportunity  to 
tear  it  up.  With  the  Russians  retreating  week  after 
week  and  month  after  month  before  the  terrific  on- 
slaughts of  Hindenburg  and  Mackensen,  with  the 
Turks  and  Germans  blocking  the  straits  of  the  Dar- 
danelles and  holding  the  British  tightly  to  the  coasts 
of  Gallipoli,  it  seemed  evident  to  Czar  Ferdinand  and 
to  his  minister  Radoslavoff  that  the  Germans  were 
the  predestined  victors  in  this  gigantic  war.  There- 
fore, after  a  disreputable  display  of  double-dealing, 
they  enlisted  Bulgaria  on  the  side  of  the  Central 
Powers  (October  4,  1915).  This  action  of  Bulgaria 
had  two  immediate  consequences.  It  linked  the  Cen- 
tral Powers  with  Turkey,  completing  the  "  corridor  " 
to  the  East,  to  Asia.  And  it  sounded  the  doom  of 
Serbia. 

Serbia  had  been  the  unwilling  pretext  of  a  war 
which  had  so  soon  broken  all  bounds,  dragging  the 
world  with  it  toward  the  abyss.  Austria's  ultimatum 
to  Serbia  had  been  the  signal  for  the  general  melee. 
Austrian  armies  had  immediately  invaded  Serbia  and 

'See  pp.  313-314- 


THE  WORLD  WAR  349 

had  seized  Belgrade,  though  only  after  having  en- 
countered a  stubborn  resistance,  during  which  the 
Serbians  had  at  one  moment  won  a  brilliant  victory 
(August  20,  1914,  and  succeeding  days),  the  first  gen- 
eral battle  on  a  European  front.  The  Serbians,  aided 
by  the  Montengrins,  fought  desperately  against  the 
Austrian  invasion,  and  by  the  middle  of  December 
their  victory  was  complete.  Belgrade  was  reoccupied 
on  December  15.  The  Austrians  retreated  precipi- 
tately out  of  the  land  for  which  they  had  had  such 
lordly  contempt.  Their  retirement  was  a  rout.  Ser- 
bia even  invaded  Austria.  A  Serbian  author  may  be 
pardoned  for  writing:  "In  ten  days  the  Serbian  vic- 
tory over  five  Austrian  army  corps  was  complete. 
Since  the  days  when  Scipio  saved  Rome  from  Han- 
nibal, or  when  England  destroyed  the  might  of  Spain, 
the  world  has  never  seen  such  a  spectacle,  and  never 
has  victory  been  more  deserved."  General  Misitch 
was  the  hero  of  the  Serbian  hour. 

Such  was  the  first  chapter  of  Serbian  history  in  the 
Great  War.  The  second  was  very  different.  The 
Germans  and  Austrians,  fresh  from  their  successes 
in  Russia  and  Galicia,  invaded  Serbia  in  great  strength 
in  October,  191 5,  under  General  von  Mackensen.  At 
the  same  time  the  Bulgarians  invaded  her  from  the 
east.  For  two  months  the  Serbians  fought  single- 
handed  and  with  unquenchable  valor  against  the  over- 
whelming forces  of  Germany,  Austria,  and  Bulgaria, 
left  in  the  lurch,  moreover,  by  their  ally  Greece,  which 
was  by  treaty  bound  to  aid  them  in  a  contingency 
like  this.  Serbia  was  completely  conquered  and 
crushed.     A  remnant  only  of  her  armies  was  able 


350  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

to  reach  safety  on  the  coast  of  Albania,  whence  it 
was  transported  in  Allied  vessels  to  the  island  of 
Corfu.  It  is  difhcult  to  find  words  adequately  to 
characterize  the  awful  retreat  across  the  barren  Al- 
banian mountains,  the  unspeakable  hardships  en- 
dured. The  war  exacted  another  martyrdom.  The 
Austro-Germans  followed  up  their  conquest  by  over- 
running Montenegro  (January,  1916). 

Simultaneously  with  this  conquest  and  extinction 
of  Serbia  another  train  of  events  was  being  started, 
whose  full  significance  was  not  to  be  made  manifest 
until  two  more  eventful  and  discouraging  years  had 
passed.  In  October,  191 5,  an  Anglo-French  force 
landed  at  Salonica,  the  leading  port  of  Greece.  It 
had  come  to  aid  Serbia  in  response  to  an  invitation 
from  the  prime  minister  of  Greece,  Venizelos.  Con- 
stantine,  the  King  of  Greece  and  a  brother-in-law  of 
the  German  Emperor,  did  not  propose  to  aid  Serbia, 
although  by  treaty  bound  to  do  so.  He  now  dis- 
missed Venizelos  and  began  a  tortuous  pro-German 
policy  which  was  ultimately  to  cost  him  his  throne. 

This  Anglo-French  army  marched  northward  to 
help  the  Serbians,  but  was  unsuccessful  and  had  to 
withdraw  behind  the  lines  of  Salonica.  But  out  of 
the  union  of  this  force,  subsequently  greatly  enlarged, 
with  the  reorganized  and  reinvigorated  remnant  of 
the  Serbian  army  which  had  found  refuge  in  the 
island  of  Corfu,  was  to  emerge  in  time  salvation  for 
the  stricken  land. 

While  the  situation  had,  during  the  year,  grown 
worse  for  the  Allies  in  the  east  and  in  the  Balkan^, 
there  had  been  a  distinct  and  a  promising  gain  for 


THE  WORLD  WAR  351 

them  in  another  quarter.  Italy  had  entered  the  war 
on  their  side.  For  over  thirty  years  Italy  had  been 
a  member  of  the  Triple  Alliance,  concluded,  in  1882, 
with  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary.  That  alliance 
she  had  renewed  as  late  as  1912  and  that  renewal 
was  to  run  until  1920.  But  when  the  war  broke  out 
in  1914  and  when  Italy  was  asked  by  her  allies  to 
cooperate  with  them,  she  declined  on  the  ground  that 
she  was  obliged  to  aid  them  only  if  they  were  at- 
tacked. Instead  of  being  attacked  they  had  them- 
selves begun  the  war.  Italy  therefore  adopted  a  pol- 
icy of  neutrality,  which  she  maintained  until  May  23, 
1915.  Then,  at  the  moment  when  the  Russians  were 
in  full  retreat,  she  entered  the  war  on  the  side  of 
the  Western  powers.  This  was  the  great  gain  of  the 
year  for  the  Allies  and  one  that  bade  fair  to  redress 
the  balance  of  power  in  their  favor. 

The  Italian  Government,  in  acting  thus,  was  but 
responding  to  a  widespread  popular  demand.  Ever 
since  the  Kingdom  of  Italy  had  been  formed  in  the 
decade  between  1859  ^^^  1870  the  Italians  had  been 
restless  under  the  thought  that  their  unification  had 
been  incomplete,  that  outside  the  boundaries  of  the 
state  as  determined  at  that  time  there  were  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  Italians  still  subject  to  Austria,  in 
the  Trentino  to  the  north,  and  in  Trieste  and  the 
peninsula  of  Istria  to  the  northeast.  This  was  Italia 
Irredenta  or  Unredeemed  Italy.  This  territory  the 
Italian  Government  now  endeavored  to  acquire,  at 
first  peacefully  through  direct  negotiations  with 
Austria-Hungary,  then,  that  method  failing,  through 
war.     Another  motive  also  influenced  the   Govern- 


352  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

ment,  the  insistent  popular  demand  that  Italy  do  her 
share  in  the  work  of  the  defense  of  civiHzation  against 
Kultur,  of  democracy  and  Hberty  against  autocracy 
and  despotism.  The  strong  instinct  of  the  ItaUan 
people  was  that  they  belonged  with  the  Allies  by  rea- 
son of  the  principles  they  held  in  common  with  them. 
Their  action  in  entering  the  war  was  naturally  greeted 
with  enthusiasm  in  France  and  England,  and  with 
deep  resentment  in  Germany  and  Austria. 

The  intervention  of  Italy  was  followed  shortly  by 
that  of  the  little  independent  republic  of  San  Marino, 
a  state  which  claims  to  be  the  oldest  in  Europe  and 
which  is  located  on  a  spur  of  the  Apennines,  entirely 
surrounded  by  Italy,  and  which  has  a  population  of 
about  twelve  thousand.  San  Marino  is  the  sole  sur- 
vivor of  those  city-republics  which  were  so  numerous 
in  Italy  during  the  Middle  Ages.  She  declared  war 
upon  the  Central  Powers,  June  3,  191 5. 

Another  Allied  gain  during  1914  and  1915  was  the 
conquest  of  the  German  colonies.  Japan  seized  Kiau- 
chau,  as  we  have  seen,  soon  after  her  entrance  into 
the  war.  In  Africa,  British  and  French  troops  easily 
overran  Togoland  and  Kamerun.  German  Southwest 
Africa  was  conquered  by  South  African  troops  under 
General  Smuts,  though  the  conquest  was  not  com- 
pleted until  early  in  1917.  A  campaign  against  Ger- 
man East  Africa  was  begun  early  and  resulted  in 
soon  freeing  that  colony  of  most  of  the  German 
troops,  some  of  whom,  however,  remained  untracked 
and  undefeated,  apparently,  until  the  end  of  the  war. 
In  the  main  the  vast  German  colonial  empire  had 
shrunk  to  very  small  proportions  by  the  close  of  1915. 


THE  WORLD  WAR  353 

In  the  same  year,  191 5,  occurred  an  event  which 
shocked  the  world  by  its  wanton  and  cowardly  bar- 
barity and  which  was  in  time  to  have  far-reaching 
consequences,  the  sinking,  on  May  7,  of  the  mam- 
moth Atlantic  liner,  the  Lusitania,  off  the  coast  of 
Ireland.  This  incident  may  best  be  described  later. 
It  should,  however,  be  included  in  this  untoward  list 
of  events  which  darkened  the  year  191 5. 

The  War  in  1916 

We  have  seen  that  Germany's  original  plan  of  war 
was  to  crush  France  first  and  then  to  turn  against 
Russia  and  force  her  to  her  knees.  This  plan  had 
been  attempted  in  1914,  but  had  not  succeeded. 
France  had  not  been  crushed,  but  had,  in  the  famous 
Battle  of  the  Marne,  defeated  the  Germans,  driving 
them  precipitately  back  to  the  Aisne,  had  preserved 
her  own  field  army  intact,  had  saved  Paris  and  the 
most  important  fortresses  of  France,  Verdun,  Belfort, 
Toul,  and  Epinal.  Unconquered  and  undaunted, 
France  was  all  through  1915  and  in  1916  the  hope  and 
the  mainstay  of  the  world,  the  flaming  and  resolute 
soul  of  the  Allied  cause.  After  a  year  and  a  half  of 
war  Russia  had,  however,  been  badly  defeated  and  had 
given  many  signs  of  that  weakness  and  disintegration 
that  were  later  to  develop  so  rapidly  and  appallingly. 
England  was  not  yet  fully  conscious  of  the  part  she 
must  play;  she  had  not  yet  brought  herself  to  adopt 
universal  military  service  although  she  had  accom- 
plished wonders  in  volunteering.  Italy  had  done  lit- 
tle to  justify  the  great  hopes  with  which  the  Allies 


354  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

had  greeted  her  entrance  into  the  war.  Belgium  had 
been  virtually  wiped  off  the  map ;  so  had  Serbia, 
Montenegro,  and  Albania;  all  had  been  overrun  by 
the  armies  of  the  Central  Powers  and  were  securely 
held.  France,  however,  stood  defiant  and  resolute, 
tense,  straining  every  nerve,  steeled  for  every  con- 
tingency. 

But  France  had  suffered  terribly  and  the  German 
military  authorities  believed  it  was  possible  to  do,  in 
1916,  what  they  had  failed  to  accomplish  in  1914. 
This  is  the  meaning  of  Verdun.  The  German  Gen- 
eral Staff  thought  that,  by  delivering  one  terrific, 
irresistible,  deadly  blow  against  the  French  army, 
they  could  smash  it.  Then  peace  would  be  in  sight, 
as  France  would  recognize  the  hopelessness  of  further 
struggle,  the  sheer  impossibility  of  ever  recovering 
Alsace-Lorraine.  Verdun  was  a  strong  position,  but, 
once  taken,  no  equally  stout  defense  could  be  made 
between  there  and  Paris.  The  capital  would  fall  and 
the  fall  of  Paris  would  certainly  mean  the  elimination 
of  France.  Incidentally,  as  the  German  Crown  Prince 
was  in  command  near  Verdun,  blinding  military  glory 
would  irradiate  the  person  of  the  heir  to  the  Prus- 
sian throne.  Could  anything  be  more  desirable  or 
more  appropriate? 

On  February  21,  1916,  at  7.15  in  the  morning,  the 
storm  broke  upon  Verdun,  a  place  long  famous  in 
the  military  annals  of  France,  but  destined  now  to 
win  a  glory  beyond  compare.  Never  had  there  been 
so  pulverizing  an  artillery  fire  as  that  which  inau- 
gurated this  attack.  The  Germans  had  made  enor- 
mous preparations,   had   enormous  armies  and   sup- 


THE  WORLD  WAR  355 

plies.  It  seemed  humanly  impossible  to  prevent  them 
from  blasting  their  way  through.  But  the  impossible 
was  done.  The  French  disputed  every  inch  of  ground 
with  incredible  coolness  and  inexhaustible  bravery. 
Nevertheless  they  lost  position  after  position,  and  in 
four  days  of  frenzied  fighting  were  driven  back  four 
miles.  Then  French  reinforcements  arrived,  hurried 
thither  by  thousands  of  motors.  And  one  of  Jofifre's 
most  brilliant  subordinates,  Petain,  reached  the  scene 
and  infused  new  energy  into  the  army  of  defense. 
Superb  and  spirit-stirring  was  Petain's  cry  to  his  sol- 
diers :  "  Courage,  comrades !    We'll  get  them." 

It  is  impossible  to  summarize  this  battle,  for  it  raged 
for  many  months,  from  February  to  October,  and 
was  characterized  by  a  multitude  of  incidents.  The 
fighting  back  and  forth  for  critical  positions  continued 
week  after  week  and  month  after  month.  Douau- 
mont  and  Vaux  are  the  names  of  two  subsidiary  forts 
which  stand  forth  most  conspicuously  in  the  murder- 
ous welter  of  repeated  attack  and  counter-attack,  of 
thrust  and  counter-thrust.  The  Germans  were  re- 
solved to  take  Verdun,  cost  what  it  might.  They 
were  ready  to  pay  the  price,  but  victory  they  would 
have.  They  paid  the  price,  in  irreparable  losses,  but 
victory  they  did  not  win.  The  French  stiffened,  under 
Petain  and  later  under  Nivelle,  and  with  the  electrify- 
ing cry:  '^ lis  ne  passeront  pas!''  ("They  shall  not 
pass!  ")  they  bafifled  the  fury  of  the  enemy  and  at  the 
end  pitched  him  out  of  most  of  the  positions  he 
had  won.  Verdun  did  not  fall.  The  military  reputa- 
tions of  Petain  and  Nivelle  had  grown  enormously 
and  the  latter  soon  succeeded  Joflfre  as  commander- 


356  FIFl^Y  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

in-chief.  The  Crown  Prince  did  not  emerge  from  this 
enterprise  irradiated  with  the  blinding  effulgence  oi 
glory.  His  experiences  were,  however,  calculated  to 
make  him  a  wiser  if  not  a  better  man. 

The  course  and  outcome  of  the  later  phases  of  the 
Verdun  campaign  were  affected  by  another  campaign 
which  was  being  carried  on  simultaneously  on  another 
sector  of  the  long  line  that  ran  from  Belgium  through 
France  to  Switzerland.  This  was  the  Battle  of  the 
Somme.  This  was  an  Anglo-French  attack,  stretch- 
ing from  Arras  to  some  distance  south  of  the  Somme 
River,  the  English  under  General  Haig,  the  French 
under  Foch,  the  Germans  under  Hindenburg,  who 
had  been  transferred  to  the  west  after  his  great  suc- 
cesses in  the  east.  England  was  now  striking  a  new 
pace,  which  she  was  to  continue  and  to  increase,  in 
participation  in  the  war  on  land.  In  1914  she  had  had 
only  a  small  regular  army  of  a  hundred  thousand 
men.  This  was  rapidly  increased  by  volunteering, 
which  achieved  notable  proportions,  but  not  notable 
enough.  Finally  in  January,  1916,  she  had  adopted 
conscription  for  single  men,  and,  in  May,  for  married 
men  as  well.  Thus  she  now  had  universal  service 
for  all  between  the  ages  of  18  and  41.  She  was  train- 
ing the  new  recruits  hastily  and  was  increasing  her 
munition  supplies  enormously.  She  had  taken  over 
more  and  more  of  the  line  until  she  was  now  man- 
ning about  ninety  miles  from  the  sea  to  the  Somme. 

The  people  of  the  Allied  countries  expected  that 
their  armies,  thus  enlarged  and  elaborately  equipped, 
would  attempt  to  break  through  the  German  lines. 
The  Battle  of  the  Somme  was  an  endeavor  to  bring 


THE  WORLD  WAR  357 

to  an  end  the  long  deadlock  on  the  western  front. 
After  a  terrific  bombardment,  which  had  by  this  time 
become  the  customary  prelude  to  an  offensive,  the 
general  assault  was  begun  on  July  i.  For  a  few  days 
the  Allies  made  progress,  though  on  the  whole  very 
slowly.  The  railroad  centers,  Bapaume  and  Peronne, 
were  their  objectives.  The  German  line  stiffened  and 
fiercely  counter-attacked.  The  battle  dragged  and 
the  rainy  season  set  in,  making  it  almost  impossible 
to  move  the  heavy  guns  over  the  muddy  roads.  While 
both  the  English  and  the  French  took  a  number  of 
towns  and  considerable  bodies  of  prisoners,  they  were 
unable  to  attain  their  objectives.  All  through  the 
summer  and  well  into  the  fall  the  desperate  struggle 
went  on,  dying  down  in  October.  The  total  area 
won  by  the  Allies  was  small,  about  120  square  miles. 
Nowhere  had  they  advanced  more  than  seven  miles 
from  their  starting  point.  Nevertheless  Haig  was 
right  when  he  announced  that  the  campaign  had  been 
a  success  for  three  reasons,  namely,  because  it  had 
relieved  Verdun;  because,  by  holding  large  masses 
of  Germans  on  the  western  front,  it  had  enabled  Rus- 
sia to  win  a  considerable  victory  on  the  eastern  front; 
and  because  it  had  worn  down  the  German  strength. 
It  was  in  the  second  phase  of  this  Battle  of  the  Somme 
that  a  new  and  redoubtable  engine  of  war  was  intro- 
duced by  the  British,  powerful  armored  cars,  quickly 
nicknamed  "  tanks,"  which  could  cross  trenches,  break 
through  barbed-wire  entanglements,  and  at  the  same 
time  could  scatter  a  murderous  fire  all  about  from 
the  guns  within.  Machine-gun  fire  against  them  was 
entirely  ineffectual.     Only  when  squarely  hit  by  pow- 


358  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

erful  missiles  from  big  cannon  were  the  tanks  dis- 
abled. 

There  was  also  serious  fighting  during  1916  on 
the  Italian  and  Russian  fronts.  The  Austrians,  believ- 
ing that  the  Russians  had  learned  their  lesson  in 
the  previous  year  and  that  they  would  think  twice 
before  again  assuming  the  offensive,  left  their  eastern 
front  lightly  guarded  and  prepared  to  punish  the 
Italians,  their  historic  enemy,  and  now  more  hated 
than  ever  because  of  their  "  treachery  "  in  breaking 
the  Triple  Alliance.  In  May  the  Austrians  began  an 
attack  from  the  Tyrol.  Controlling  the  passes  of  the 
Alps,  they  were  able  to  form  a  large  army  and  to 
threaten  Verona  and  Vicenza.  The  Italians  resisted 
desperately,  but  lost  a  large  number  of  guns  and  men. 
They  also  lost  about  two  hundred  and  thirty  square 
miles  of  Italian  territory.  But  the  Austrians  had 
weakened  their  eastern  front  so  seriously  that  the 
Russians  were  winning  great  victories  over  them  in 
that  theater.  This  in  turn  reacted  upon  the  Italian 
campaign  by  forcing  the  Austrians  to  recall  many 
troops  in  order  to  ward  off  the  new  danger.  There- 
fore, they  were  obliged  to  forego  for  the  time  being 
their  dream  of  breaking  into  the  plains  of  Venetia. 

While  the  Russians  had  been  forced  by  Hinden- 
burg  and  Mackensen  to  make  a  great  retreat  in  1915, 
they  had  not  been  put  out  of  the  war  and,  in  June, 
1916,  they  began,  under  Brusilofif,  a  new  offensive, 
this  time  between  the  Pripet  Marshes  and  the  Aus- 
trian province  of  Bukowina.  Brusiloff's  drive  was 
for  a  while  successful  and  netted  far  larger  territorial 
gains  than  were  made  on  the  western  front  in  the 


THE  WORLD  WAR  359 

Battle  of  the  Somme.  Brusiloff  was  able  to  push  the 
Austrians  back  from  twenty  to  fifty  miles,  to  take 
a  large  number  of  prisoners,  and  to  capture  many 
towns  and  cities,  including  the  important  ones  of 
Lutsk  and  Czernowitz.  The  campaign  lasted  from 
June  to  October,  but  after  the  first  month  no  great 
progress  was  made  and  the  offensive  gradually  wore 
down  and  stopped.  Russia  was  far  from  having  re- 
covered what  she  had  lost  in  the  previous  year.  In- 
deed, she  recovered  practically  nothing  in  the  north 
from  the  Pripet  Marshes  to  the  Baltic  Sea. 

The  interplay  of  these  various  campaigns  was  un- 
mistakable. The  Somme  helped  Verdun,  the  Russian 
drive  helped  Italy  by  freeing  her  of  the  Austrians 
and  by  enabling  her  to  begin  an  offensive  along  the 
Isonzo  which  yielded  Gorizia  on  August  9  and 
brought  her  to  within  thirteen  miles  of  coveted 
Trieste.  But  while  there  was  this  interplay,  this  re- 
lieving of  pressure  in  one  region  by  bringing  pressure 
to  bear  in  another,  the  team-work  was  most  imper- 
fect. The  desirability  of  a  unified  command  of  all  the 
Allied  forces  had  hardly  begun  to  dawn.  It  took  the 
experiences  of  another  year  and  more  to  drive  that 
idea  into  the  minds  of  the  governing  authorities  of 
the  various  countries  concerned. 

The  unhappy  consequences  of  the  lack  of  proper 
coordination  in  a  common  cause  were  conspicuously 
shown  in  another  field  in  this  same  year  of  1916, 
namely,  in  Roumania.  Roumania  entered  the  war  on 
the  side  of  the  Allies  on  August  27,  1916.  Her  chief 
motive  was  to  assure  "  the  realization  of  her  national 
unity,"  by  which   phrase  was   meant   the   liberation 


36o  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

from  Austria-Hungary  of  the  three  million  Rouma- 
nians who  Hved  in  the  eastern  section  of  the  Dual 
Monarchy,  in  Transylvania,  and  their  incorporation 
in  the  Kingdom  of  Roumania.  The  principle  of  na- 
tionality was  at  the  basis  of  Roumania's  action,  the 
principle  that  kindred  peoples  desiring  to  be  united 
should  be  united.  Roumania's  declaration  of  war  was 
naturally  warmly  applauded  by  the  Allies.  It  was 
followed  immediately  by  a  Roumanian  invasion  of 
Transylvania,  which  achieved  very  considerable  suc- 
cesses. 

But  the  Germans  were  resolved  to  prevent  this 
threatened  mutilation  of  their  ally  and  also  this  threat- 
ened cutting  of  the  connection  between  the  Central 
Powers  and  Turkey.  Roumanian  success,  if  unim- 
peded, would  widen  out  into  the  Balkans  and  imperil 
the  famous  "  corridor  "  through  Bulgaria  and  Serbia. 
The  German  General  Staff  determined,  therefore,  to 
strike  with  all  the  force  at  its  command,  to  deal  a 
blow  that  should  be  both  swift  and  memorable.  Two 
large  armies  composed  of  Germans,  Austro-Hunga- 
rians,  Bulgarians,  and  Turks,  and  under  the  command 
of  Falkenhayn  and  Mackensen,  were  sent  against 
Roumania.  They  conquered  the  southern  part  of  the 
kingdom  with  comparative  ease  and  entered  Bucharest, 
the  capital,  on  December  6.  What  was  left  of  the 
Roumanian  army  withdrew  to  the  north.  Jassy  be- 
came the  provisional  seat  of  Roumanian  government. 
Peace  was  not  concluded  until  much  later,  but  mean- 
while the  Central  Powers  controlled  most  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  Roumania,  and  exploited  its  rich  resources  in 
wheat  and  oil.     The  corridor  to  Constantinople  was 


THE  WORLD  WAR  361 

widened  rather  than  cut.  From  this  time  forth  the 
German  ambition  to  create  a  Middle  Europe,  domi- 
nated by  Germany,  became  more  and  more  pro- 
nounced and  more  and  more  insistent. 

The  Roumanian  disaster  was  due  to  the  immense 
superiority  of  German  resources,  equipment,  and  gen- 
eralship; also  to  the  mistakes  of  Roumania.  One  of 
these  mistakes  was  the  lateness  of  her  decision  to 
enter  the  war.  None  of  the  Allies  was  in  a  position 
to  help  her,  except  Russia.  Had  Roumania  declared 
war  in  June  at  the  moment  of  Brusilofif's  great  vic- 
tories, the  outcome  might  have  been  very  different. 
As  it  was  she  declared  it  when  Brusilofif's  drive  had 
been  brought  to  a  standstill.  This  was  but  one  more 
proof  of  the  fact  that  the  Allies  must  bring  about  a 
closer  adjustment  of  their  efforts,  if  they  were  to  win. 

One  more  state  entered  the  European  War  in  1916, 
Portugal.  On  February  23,  Portugal  seized  the  Ger- 
man ships  in  her  harbors,  claiming  that  the  shortage 
of  tonnage  created  by  Germany's  submarine  campaign 
justified  the  action.  Whereupon  Germany  declared 
war  upon  her,  March  9.  A  few  days  later  it  was 
officially  announced  by  the  Portuguese  minister  to 
the  United  States  that  "  Portugal  is  drawn  into  the 
war  as  a  result  of  her  long-standing  alliance  with 
England,  an  alliance  that  has  withstood  unbroken 
the  strain  of  five  hundred  years."  This,  it  is  curious 
to  note,  is  a  reference  to  a  treaty  signed  in  London 
on  June  16,  1873,  by  which  each  country  pledged  it- 
self to  assist  the  other  in  case  of  war,  a  treaty  as 
legitimate  as  that  of  the  Triple  Alliance,  much  more 
venerable,   and   far  less   injurious   to   the  welfare  of 


362  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Europe.  During  all  these  centuries  the  Anglo- 
Portuguese  Alliance  has  continued,  frequently  reaf- 
firmed, the  friendship  it  was  designed  to  bring  about 
still  exists,  the  treaty  concluded  in  1373  has  been 
broken  by  neither  party  and  is  still  considered  in 
force.  Portugal  participated  in  the  war  by  sending 
an  army  to  France  and  by  aiding  England  in  Africa. 

The  year  1916  witnessed  also  a  great  naval  engage- 
ment between  England  and  Germany,  the  Battle  of 
Jutland.  England  had  given  since  the  outbreak  of 
the  war  remarkable  evidence  of  her  might  upon  the 
ocean.  The  mobilization  of  her  fleet  in  the  opening 
days  was  quite  as  noteworthy  in  its  way  as  the  mobili- 
zation of  the  German  army,  and  as  the  latter  entered 
forthwith  upon  a  career  of  victory,  so  also  did  the 
former.  The  pressure  of  the  British  navy  began  at 
once  to  be  felt  where  it  was  intended  it  should  be, 
in  Germany.  A  blockade  of  the  German  coast  was 
established  at  the  very  outset,  which  was  destined 
to  be  made  steadily  more  effective.  Germany's  mer- 
chant shipping  was  swept  from  the  ocean,  the  vast 
fabric  of  her  sea-borne  commerce  collapsed.  The 
British  fleet  prevented  Germany  from  importing  such 
essentials  as  foodstuffs,  petroleum,  cotton,  coffee,  rub- 
ber, zinc,  tin,  so  necessary  in  the  work  of  war.  The 
blockade  was  not  perfect,  as  now  and  then  a  German 
raider  could  get  through — sure,  however,  in  the  end, 
to  be  hunted  down.  But  the  attention  of  the  world, 
the  attention  even  of  England  herself,  was  not  riveted 
upon  this  incessant  naval  war  as  it  was  upon  the  mili- 
tary operations  on  land.  One  reason  for  this  was 
that  the  naval  war  was  silent  and  unseen,  although 


THE  WORLD  WAR  363 

its  effects  were  most  important.  Another  was  that 
the  war  on  land  was  bitterly  contested  and  gave  rise 
to  numberless  incidents,  was  a  tense,  critical  and 
doubtful  struggle,  while  the  war  on  the  sea  was,  gen- 
erally speaking,  devoid  of  incident.  England's  com- 
mand of  her  element  was  never  in  doubt,  and  was 
even  challenged  only  infrequently.  Submarines  could 
and  did  do  occasional  damage,  even  in  one  instance 
sinking  three  English  war  vessels,  and  there  had  been 
two  or  three  sea  fights  between  small  fractions  of  the 
fleets,  Germany  winning  a  victory  in  the  early  days 
off  Chili,  England  a  far  more  significant  one  subse- 
quently off  the  Falkland  Islands.  These  events  were, 
however,  of  minor  importance.  But  the  main  Ger- 
man fleet  stuck  tightly  to  its  base,  the  harbor  of  Kiel, 
and  the  unremitting,  perpetual  stress  of  the  blockade 
offered  no  sensations  to  a  world  which  was  surfeited 
with  them  as  a  result  of  the  land  warfare. 

But  on  May  31,  1916,  the  German  High  Seas  fleet, 
commanded  by  Admiral  von  Scheer,  steamed  forth,  and 
skirted  up  the  western  coast  of  Denmark.  Sighted 
by  the  British  scouts  under  Admiral  Beatty,  about 
3.30  in  the  afternoon,  an  engagement  immediately 
began,  the  main  British  squadron,  under  Admiral 
JeUicoe,  coming  up  only  later.  The  battle  continued 
for  several  hours,  until  darkness  came  on,  be- 
tween eight  and  nine.  It  was  the  greatest  naval  bat- 
tle since  Trafalgar  and,  in  the  strength  and  power  of 
the  units  engaged,  undoubtedly  the  greatest  in  all 
history.  The  result  was  inconclusive.  Both  sides  lost 
important  ships,  but  both  claimed  to  be  victorious. 
That   the   real   victor,   however,   was   England   was 


364  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

proved  by  the  fact  that  the  German  fleet  was  obliged 
to  return  to  Kiel  and  did  not  again  emerge  from  that 
refuge.  Britannia  still  ruled  the  wave,  and  it  was 
extremely  fortunate  for  the  safety  of  democracy  in 
England,  France,  Italy,  and  the  United  States,  and 
for  liberty   everywhere,   that  she  did. 

Had  England  rendered  no  other  service  than  this 
of  making  the  seas  safe  for  freedom  and  dangerous 
for  despotism,  the  debt  of  humanity  to  her  would 
be  incalculable.  But  she  was  doing  far  more  than 
this.  The  utterances  of  her  statesmen,  like  those  of 
France,  from  the  first  of  August,  1914,  defined  the 
issues  at  stake,  and  set  forth  adequately  the  appalling 
gravity  of  the  crisis.  Not  only  were  those  utterances 
profoundly  educative,  but  they  were  veritable  trumpet 
blasts,  summoning  to  action,  action,  action,  in  the  in- 
terest of  all  that  men  in  western  Europe  and  in  Amer- 
ica had  long  held  most  precious.  In  the  darkest  hours, 
and  there  were  many  such  during  those  first  three 
years,  there  was  no  faltering  in  high  places,  no  talk 
of  compromise  of  right  with  wrong,  no  weakening  of 
resolution,  no  abatement  of  demand  that  this  world 
be  made  safe  for  civilized  men.  It  must  never  be 
forgotten  that  the  leaders  of  France  and  England, 
and  the  nations  they  represented,  were  constant  and 
valorous  defenders  of  the  New  World,  as  of  the  Old, 
that  it  was  their  heroism  and  their  immeasurable 
spirit  of  sacrifice  that  barred  the  way  of  a  vulgar 
and  conscienceless  tyrant  toward  universal  domina- 
tion. Never  did  men  die  in  a  holier  cause.  And  they 
died  in  enormous  numbers,  literally  by  the  million. 


THE  WORLD  WAR  365 

Entrance  of  the  United  States  into  the  War 

In  such  a  contest  as  that  the  United  States  be- 
longed, body  and  soul.  If  she  was  to  preserve  a  shred 
of  self-respect,  if  she  was  to  maintain  inviolate  the 
honor  of  the  American  name,  if  she  was  to  safeguard 
the  elementary  rights  of  American  citizens,  if  she  was 
bound  in  any  sense  to  be  her  brother's  helper  in  the 
defense  of  freedom  in  the  world,  then  she  must  take 
her  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  the  hosts  of  free- 
men in  Europe  who  were  giving  and  had  long  been 
giving  the  last  full  measure  of  devotion  to  that  cause, 
then  she  must  spend  her  manhood  and  her  wealth 
freely  and  without  complaint,  as  France  and  England 
and  Belgium  and  Serbia  had  done. 

From  very  early  in  the  war  there  were  Americans 
who  endeavored  to  arouse  their  country  to  a  sense 
of  its  danger  and  its  duty,  to  persuade  it  to  prepare, 
to  fire  it  with  the  resolve  to  keep  the  nation's  'scutch- 
eon clean.  Among  those  who,  by  their  quick  and 
intelligent  appreciation  of  the  situation,  by  their  cour- 
age and  activity,  rendered  invaluable  service  in  the 
campaign  of  national  education  were  Ex-President 
Roosevelt  and  General  Leonard  Wood. 

From  August,  1914,  to  April,  1917,  America  passed 
through  a  painful,  humiliating,  and  dangerous  expe- 
rience. Her  declaration  of  war  was  the  expression  of 
the  wisdom  she  distilled  from  that  experience.  Her 
entrance  into  the  war  was  the  most  important  event 
of  the  year  1917,  though  not  immediately  the  most 
important,  for  the  collapse  of  Russia,  occurring  also 


366  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

in  that  year,  had  a  quicker  and  more  direct  bearing 
upon  the  military  situation.  But  in  the  end,  if 
America  kept  the  faith,  she  could  tip  the  scales  de- 
cisively. 

We  entered  the  war,  finally,  because  Germany 
forced  us  in,  because  she  rendered  it  absolutely  im- 
possible for  us  to  stay  out  unless  we  were  the  most 
craven  and  pigeon-hearted  people  on  the  earth.  Any- 
one who  counted  on  that  being  the  case  was  enter- 
taining a  notion  for  which  he  could  certainly  cite  no 
evidence  in  our  previous  history. 

How  did  Germany  force  us  into  this  war?  What 
specific  things  did  she  do  that  could  be  answered  in 
the  end  in  one  way  and  one  way  only? 

The  record  is  a  long  one,  of  offenses  to  the  moral, 
the  intellectual,  the  spiritual,  the  material  interests  of 
America.  First,  the  wanton  attack  upon  Serbia,  a 
small  state,  by  two  bullies,  Austria  and  Germany,  and 
the  flouting  of  all  suggestions  of  arbitration  or  at- 
tempts to  settle  international  difficulties  peacefully, 
methods  in  which  America  believed,  as  had  been 
shown  by  her  own  repeated  use  of  them,  and  by  her 
enthusiastic  support  of  the  efforts  of  the  two  Hague 
Conferences  to  perfect  those  methods  and  to  win 
general  adhesion  to  them.  Second,  the  invasion  of 
Belgium  and  the  martyrdom  of  that  country,  amid 
nameless  indignities  and  inhumanities.  The  indig- 
nation of  America  was  spontaneous,  widespread,  and 
intense,  nor  has  it  shown  any  tendency  to  abate  from 
that  day  to  this.  The  sentiment  of  horror,  thus  need- 
lessly aroused,  coupled  with  admiration  for  the  brave 
resistance  of  the  Belgians  and  sympathy  for  their  suf-. 


THE  WORLD  WAR  367 

ferings,  contributed  powerfully  to  the  creation  of  that 
state  of  mind  which  finally  gained  expression  on  April 
6,  1917. 

But  the  conquest  and  the  inhuman  treatment  of 
Belgium  was  no  direct  infringement  of  our  rights. 
The  national  indignation  was  profoundly  stirred,  the 
national  sympathy  aroused,  but  neither  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  Government  nor  the  persons  or  property 
of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  were  affected. 
These  were,  however,  not  long  to  remain  immune 
from  attack.  German  and  Austrian  officials,  accred- 
ited to  our  Government  and  enjoying  the  hospitality 
of  our  country,  proceeded  to  use  their  positions  here 
for  the  purpose  of  damaging  Germany's  enemies. 
They  fomented  strikes  among  American  munition 
workers  and  seamen;  they  caused  bombs  to  be  placed 
on  ships  carrying  munitions  of  war;  they  plotted  in- 
cendiary fires,  and  conspired  to  bring  about  the  de- 
struction of  ships  and  factories.  In  191 5  the  ambas- 
sador of  Austria-Hungary,  Dumba,  and  the  German- 
military  and  naval  attaches,  Papen  and  Boy-Ed,  were 
caught  in  such  activities,  and  were  forced  to  leave  the 
country.  Under  the  supervision  of  Papen  a  regular 
ofilice  was  maintained  to  procure  fraudulent  passports, 
by  lying  and  by  forgery,  for  German  reservists. 
American  territory  was  used  as  a  base  of  supplies, 
and  military  enterprises  against  Canada  and  against 
India  were  hatched  by  Germans  on  American  soil. 
These  German  plots  were  in  gross  defiance  of  our 
position  as  a  neutral  and  of  our  sovereignty  as  an 
independent  nation.  The  German  Embassy  in  Wash- 
ington was  a  nest  of  scoundrels,  plotting  arson,  and 


368  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

murder  also,  since  the  incendiary  fires  and  explosions 
cost  many  innocent  lives. 

While  the  diplomatic  representatives  of  Germany 
were  engaged  in  plotting  criminal  enterprises  against 
Americans  at  home,  the  German  Government  itself 
had  embarked  upon  a  course  of  procedure  that  in- 
evitably ended  in  the  destruction  of  American  lives 
and  property  on  the  high  seas.  In  February,  1915, 
Germany  proclaimed  the  waters  around  the  British 
Isles  "  a  war  zone  "  and  announced  that  enemy  ships 
found  within  that  zone  would  be  sunk  without  warn- 
ing. Neutrals  were  expected  to  keep  their  ships  and 
citizens  out  of  this  area.  If  they  did  not,  the  respon- 
sibility for  what  might  happen  would  be  theirs,  not 
Germany's. 

Such  was  the  announcement  of  Germany's  subma- 
rine policy,  a  policy  that  was  to  have  more  momentous 
consequences  than  its  authors  imagined.  A  subma- 
rine is  a  war  vessel  and  as  such  has  a  perfect  right  to 
attack  an  enemy  war  vessel  without  warning  and 
sink  her  if  she  can.  But  neither  a  submarine  nor 
any  other  war  vessel  has  any  right,  under  interna- 
tional law,  to  sink  a  merchantman  belonging  to  the 
enemy  or  belonging  to  a  neutral,  except  under  cer- 
tain conditions,  and  one  of  the  conditions  is  that  the 
persons  on  board,  crew  and  passengers,  shall  be  re- 
moved to  the  ship  attacking  or  their  lives  otherwise 
absolutely  safeguarded. 

President  Wilson,  six  days  after  the  German  proc- 
lamation, dispatched  a  note  to  Germany  announcing 
that  the  United  States  would  hold  the  German  Gov- 
ernment   to  "  a  strict    accountability "    should    any 


THE  WORLD  WAR  369 

American  ships  be  sunk  or  American  lives  lost,  and 
that  the  United  States  would  take  all  steps  necessary 
"  to  safeguard  American  lives  and  property  and  to 
secure  to  American  citizens  the  full  enjoyment  of  their 
acknowledged  rights  on  the  high  seas." 

To  this  the  German  Government  replied  that  neu- 
tral vessels  entering  the  war  zone  "will  themselves 
bear  the  responsibility  for  any  unfortunate  accidents 
that  may  occur.  Germany  disclaims  all  responsibility 
for  such  accidents  and  their  consequences."  This  was 
a  clear  announcement  that  not  only  did  she  propose 
to  sink  enemy  merchantmen,  but  neutral  merchant- 
men as  well,  were  they  found  within  the  prohibited 
zone,  without  removing  the  passengers  to  safety  or 
even  giving  them  the  warning  necessary  to  enable 
them  to  take  to  the  lifeboats,  which,  on  the  high 
seas,  would  themselves  not  be  places  of  safety,  but 
which  at  least  might  perhaps  give  some  chance  for 
life. 

On  March  28,  a  British  steamer,  the  Falaba,  was 
torpedoed  and  one  American  was  drowned.  On  May 
I,  an  American  ship,  the  Gulflight,  was  torpedoed 
without  warning.  The  vessel  managed  to  remain 
afloat  and  was  later  towed  into  port,  but  the  captain 
died  of  heart  failure  caused  by  the  shock,  and  two  of 
the  crew  who  jumped  overboard  were  drowned.  The 
Government  of  the  United  States  began  at  once  to 
investigate  the  case,  as  here  apparently  were  all  the 
elements  calling  for  strict  accountability.  But  before 
the  investigation  was  completed,  indeed  before  a  week 
had  passed,  the  case  was  overshadowed  by  another, 
the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania. 


370  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Germany's  ruthless  submarine  campaign,  in  force 
since  February,  had  resulted  by  the  first  of  May  in 
the  sinking  of  over  sixty  merchant  ships  in  the  war 
zone,  several  of  them  belonging  to  neutral  nations, 
with  a  loss  of  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  lives,,  all 
of  them  the  lives  of  non-combatants.     Germany  had 
deliberately  adopted  a  policy  that  involved  the  kill- 
ing of  as  many  non-combatants,  hitherto  protected  by 
international  law  and  the  usages  of  warfare  among 
civilized  nations,  as  might  be  necessary  to  enable  her 
to  achieve  her  ends.     What  she  had  done  on  land  to 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  peaceful,  unarmed,  non- 
fighting  people  in  Belgium  and  France  she  was  now 
ready  and  resolved  to  do  on  the  sea.     But  while  she 
was  torpedoing  many  vessels,  yet  England's  commerce 
went  on  as  before,  thousands  of  ships  entering  and 
clearing  British  ports,  and  Great  Britain  was  trans- 
porting an  army  to  France  without  the  loss  of  a  single 
man.     As  the  German  people  had  been  told  that  the 
submarines  would  quickly  bring  England  to  her  knees 
and  as  they  were  not  doing  so,  something  spectacular 
and  sensational  must  be  achieved  to  justify  the  prom- 
ises   and    expectations,    and    to    silence    criticism    or 
discouragement  at  home.     Consequently,  the  largest 
trans-Atlantic  British  liner  still  in  service  was  selected 
for  destruction.     The  world,  it  was  believed,  would 
then  take  notice  and  people  would  think  twice  before 
entering  the  war  zone.     On  May  7,  the  Lusitania  was 
torpedoed  twice  without  warning  and   sank  in  less 
than  twenty  minutes.     Nearly  twelve  hundred  men, 
women,  and  children  were  drowned,  among  them  over 
a  hundred  Americans.     This  cold-blooded,  deliberate 


THE  WORLD  WAR  371 

murder  of  innocent  non-combatants  was  the  most  bril- 
liant achievement  of  Germany's  submarine  campaign 
and  was  celebrated  with  enthusiasm  in  Germany  as 
a  great  "victory."  The  rest  of  the  world  regarded 
it  as  both  barbarous  and  cowardly.  The  indignation 
of  Americans  at  this  murder  of  Americans  was  uni- 
versal and  intense.  When,  three  years  later,  Ameri- 
can soldiers  in  France  went  over  the  top,  in  the  cam- 
paign of  1918,  shouting  "  Lusitania!"  at  their  foes, 
they  were  but  expressing  the  deep-seated  indignation 
of  an  outraged  people,  an  indignation  and  resentment 
which    time   had   done   nothing   to   assuage. 

On  May  13,  President  Wilson  dispatched  a  mes- 
sage to  Germany  denouncing  this  act  as  a  gross  vio- 
lation of  international  law,  demanding  that  Germany 
disavow  it  and  make  reparation  as  "  far  as  reparation 
is  possible,"  and  declaring  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  would  not  "  omit  any  word  or  any  act 
necessary  to  the  performance  of  its  sacred  duty  of 
maintaining  the  rights  of  the  United  States  and  its 
citizens  and  of  safeguarding  their  free  exercise  and 
enjoyment." 

Germany  replied  on  May  28,  evading  the  main  is- 
sues of  the  American  note  and  making  many  asser- 
tions that  were  quickly  proved  to  be  lies.  A  corre- 
spondence ensued  between  the  two  Governments,  in 
which  the  President  repeated  his  demand  for  dis- 
avowal and  all  possible  reparation.  In  the  end  Ger- 
many offered  to  pay  for  the  lives  lost,  but  refused 
to  admit  that  the  sinking  of  the  ship  was  illegal.  No 
agreement  was  reached  between  the  two  nations. 
No  action,  however,  was  taken. 


372  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE- 

All  through  1915,  torpedoing  of  vessels  continued, 
and  several  Americans  were  drowned.  The  Govern- 
ment steadily  asserted  our  rights,  the  German  Gov- 
ernment evading  the  fundamental  principles  involved, 
trying  to  confuse  the  issue  by  raising  irrelevant  points. 

On  March  24,  1916,  occurred  another  major  event 
in  this  campaign  of  indiscriminate  murder  of  inno- 
cent non-combatants,  namely,  the  torpedoing  without 
warning  of  an  English  ship,  the  Sussex,  while  cross- 
ing the  English  Channel.  Two  Americans  were  in- 
jured and  about  seventy  others,  who  were  on  board, 
were  endangered.  President  Wilson  again  protested 
and  declared  the  United  States  could  "  have  no  choice 
but  to  sever  diplomatic  relations  with  the  German 
Empire  altogether,"  unless  the  German  Government 
"  should  now  immediately  declare  and  effect  an  aban- 
donment of  its  present  methods  of  submarine  war- 
fare against  passenger  and  freight-carrying  vessels." 
Finally,  on  May  4,  Germany  agreed  that  henceforth 
merchant  vessels  should  not  be  sunk  without  warning 
and  without  saving  human  lives,  unless  these  ships 
should  attempt  to  escape  or  offer  resistance.  But 
she  appended  a  condition,  namely,  that  the  United 
States  should  compel  Great  Britain  to  observe  inter- 
national law.  If  the  United  States  should  not  suc- 
ceed, then  Germany  "  must  reserve  to  itself  complete 
liberty  of  decision." 

President  Wilson  accepted  the  promise  and  repu- 
diated the  condition  on  the  ground  that  our  plain 
rights  could  not  be  made  contingent  by  Germany 
upon  what  any  other  power  should  or  should  not 
do.    To  this  note  Germany  sent  no  reply. 


THE  WORLD  WAR  373 

That  the  promise  was  entirely  insincere,  that  it  was 
the  intention  to  keep  it  only  as  long  as  it  should  be 
convenient,  that  ruthless  submarine  warfare  was  to 
be  resumed  whenever  it  seemed  likely  to  be  success- 
ful, was  admitted  later  by  the  German  Chancellor, 
Bethmann-Hollweg.  Sinkings  continued  to  occur 
from  time  to  time  throughout  1916,  and  finally,  on 
January  31,  191 7,  the  mask  of  hypocrisy  and  duplicity 
was  thrown  aside  and  a  policy  of  unrestricted  and 
ruthless  submarine  warfare  was  proclaimed.  Ger- 
many announced  that  beginning  the  next  day,  Feb- 
ruary I,  she  would  prevent  "in  a  zone  around  Great 
Britain,  France,  and  Italy,  and  in  the  Eastern  Medi- 
terranean, all  navigation,  that  of  neutrals  included. 
...  All  ships  met  within  that  zone  will  be  sunk." 
The  insulting  concession  was  made  that  one  Ameri- 
can passenger  ship  per  week  might  go  to  England,  if 
it  were  first  painted  in  stripes,  the  breadth  of  which 
was  indicated,  and  if  it  carefully  followed  a  route  laid 
down  by  Germany.  "  Give  us  two  months  of  this 
kind  of  warfare,"  said  the  German  foreign  secre- 
tary, Zimmermann,  to  Ambassador  Gerard,  on  Jan- 
uary 31,  "  and  we  shall  end  the  war  and  make  peace 
within  three  months." 

There  was  only  one  answer  possible  to  such  a  note 
as  this,  unless  the  people  of  the  United  States  were 
willing  to  hold  their  rights  and  liberties  subject  to  the 
pleasure  and  interest  of  Germany.  On  February  3 
the  President  severed  diplomatic  relations  with  Ger- 
many, recalled  our  ambassador,  and  dismissed  von 
Bernstorfif.  Toward  the  end  of  the  month  Secretary 
Lansing  made  pubHc  an  intercepted  dispatch  from  the 


374       FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

German  foreign  secretary,  Zimmermann,  to  the  Ger- 
man minister  to  Mexico,  instructing  him  to  propose 
an  alliance  with  Mexico  and  Japan  and  war  upon  the 
United  States,  Mexico's  reward  to  be  the  acquisition 
of  the  states  of  Texas,  New  Mexico,  and  Arizona. 
In  other  words  the  United  States  was  to  be  dismem- 
bered. 

When,  on  April  2,  191 7,  President  Wilson  appeared 
before  Congress  and  in  an  address,  which  was  a  scath- 
ing arraignment  of  Germany  before  the  world,  rec- 
ommended a  declaration  of  war  against  this  "  natural 
foe  to  liberty  "  he  had  a  predestined  and  enthusiastic 
response,  for  he  was  but  expressing  the  wishes  of  the 
American  people,  who  did  not  intend  to  have  war 
made   upon   them   indefinitely   without   their   hitting 
back  at  the  aggressor  with  all  the  force  at  their  com- 
mand, and  who  were  resolved  to  share  in  the  enter- 
prise of  saving  the  world  from  Prussian  domination, 
or,  in  the  words  of  the  President,  "  to  vindicate  the 
principles  of  peace  and  justice  in  the  life  of  the  world, 
as  against  selfish  and  autocratic  power  "  and  "  to  make 
the  world  safe  for  democracy."    On  April  6,  Congress 
passed  a  resolution  to  the  eflfect  "  that  the  state  of 
war  between  the  United  States  and  the  Imperial  Ger- 
man Government  which  has  thus  been  thrust  upon 
the  United  States  is  hereby  formally  declared,"  and  it 
shortly  proceeded  to  pass  a  series  of  important  mili- 
tary, financial,  and  economic  measures  designed  to  en- 
able the  country  to  play  a  worthy  part  in  the  great 
struggle.      The   United   States   did   not   declare   war 
upon  Austria-Hungary  until  December  7,  nor  did  it 
then  or  later  declare  war  upon  Bulgaria  and  Turkey. 


THE  WORLD  WAR  375 

With  the  two  latter  diplomatic  relations  only  were 
broken. 

Thus  a  war,  begun  with  incredible  lightness  of  heart 
by  Austria-Hungary  and  Germany  upon  the  banks  of 
the  Danube,  had  expanded  until  it  included  not  only 
most  of  Europe,  but  Asia  and  Africa,  and  now  all  of 
North  America.  Canada  had  been  in  the  war  since  its 
beginning  and  had  greatly  distinguished  herself  on 
many  fields.  Now  came  the  United  States,  unpre- 
pared, save  for  her  navy,  which  at  once  began  to 
prove  its  mettle  and  its  value  to  our  allies,  but  po- 
tentially an  immense  addition  to  the  fighting  ranks, 
should  its  enormous  and  varied  resources  be  devel- 
oped and  properly  applied.  The  entrance  of  the 
United  States  into  the  war  was  followed  by  the  en- 
trance of  the  republics  of  Cuba  and  Panama  on  the 
following  day  (April  7).  In  June,  1917,  King  Con- 
stantine  of  Greece  was  deposed  and  Greece  joined  the 
Allies  July  2.  Siam  declared  war  on  Germany  July  22, 
Liberia  on  August  4,  China  on  August  14,  Brazil  on 
October  26,  and  in  the  same  year  several  Central  and 
South  American  states  broke  off  diplomatic  relations 
with  Germany. 

Of  more  immediate  and  direct  influence  upon  the 
course  of  the  war  than  this  intervention  of  the  United 
States,  which  could  only  make  itself  greatly  felt  after 
a  period  of  preparation,  was  a  series  of  far-reaching 
and  startling  occurrences  in  another  quarter. 

Revolution  in  Russia 

The  most  important  event  of  1917  was  the  collapse 
of  Russia  and  its  withdrawal  from   the  war.     This 


376       FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

meant  an  enormous  increase  of  Germany's  power  and 
at  the  same  time  imposed  a  new  and  mighty  burden 
upon  the  AlHes,  a  burden  which  threatened  to  be  too 
great  for  them  to  bear. 

Russia  had  been  badly  defeated  by  Hindenburg  in 
1915,  and  Brusilofif's  campaign  of  1916,  after  impor- 
tant initial  successes,  had  been  brought  to  a  stand- 
still. The  result  of  these  events  was  to  arouse  criti- 
cism of  the  Government.  The  belief  spread  that  the 
old  familiar  "  dark  forces  "  were  in  control  once  more, 
that  they  were  using  the  distresses  of  the  nation  for 
their  individual  advantage,  that  the  court  was  pro- 
German,  that  the  Czar  was  meditating  a  separate 
peace  with  Germany.  Charges  of  incompetence  and 
dishonesty  were  made  against  certain  officials.  The^ 
leading  members  of  the  Duma  demanded  that  a  re- 
sponsible ministry  be  created,  a  demand  supported  by 
the  army  and  the  people,  and  that  radical  changes 
be  made  in  the  Government  in  the  direction  of  greater 
efificiency,  such  as  were  being  made  in  France  and 
England.  In  February  100,000  workingmen  went  on 
strike  in  Petrograd,  and  25,000  in  Moscow.  An  acute 
food  crisis  developed  and  lawless  raids  on  bakeries 
occurred.  When  ordered  to  fire  on  the  mobs  some 
of  the  soldiers  refused  to  do  so,  an  ominous  sign.  On 
March  11  the  Czar  dissolved  the  Duma,  wishing  to 
get  rid  of  it.  But  the  Duma  refused  to  dissolve.  A 
revolution  was  in  full  swing.  There  was  considerable 
street  fighting,  the  police  being  the  particular  objects 
of  popular  wrath.  Revolutionary  bands  captured 
some  important  buildings  and  seized  the  prime  min- 
ister Golitzin,  and  a  former  prime  minister  Stiirmer, 


Aug   I915.~"       Dae.l9l7— . 
Rg6si«nadvane«inteEastPr.l9V4— — 
••  Oallda  |9IS— -r 
Scale  in  Miles 


378  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

under  suspicion  as  being  involved  in  pro-German  in- 
trigues.    The  Duma  now  effected  a  coup  d'etat,  voting* 
to   establish   a   Provisional   Government.     The   Czar 
was  informed  of  this  change  and' required  to  abdicate. 
This  he  did  on  March  15.     ThuVeiided  the  reign  of 
Nicholas  II,  the  last  of  the  Romanoffs,  a  family  which 
had   ruled   in   Russia   for   three   hundred   years   and 
more. 
'^''  The  Provisional  Government  was  a  coalition  rep- 
resenting the  three  different  parties  which  had  had 
most  to  do  with  bringing  about  this  surprising  change. 
Prinze  Lvoff,  the  head  of  the  ministry,  represented 
the  business  men  and  landowners  of  a  liberal  type, 
Paul  Milyukoff,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  long  as- 
sociated with  Russian  reform  movements,  represented 
the  Constitutional  Democratic  party,  and  Kerensky 
represented  the  third  group,  namely,  the  soldiers  and 
workingmen.     Kerensky  was  a  Revolutionary  Social- 
ist,   sympathetic    with    the    popular    demand    for    a 
juster  division  of  the  land  in  the  interest  of  the  agri- 
cultural.masse^.    The  ministry  proceeded  to  give  back 
to  Finland  her  constitution,  to  promise  self-govern- 
ment and  unity  to  Poland,  to  endow  the  Jews  with 
equal  political,  civil,  and  military  rights.     On  March 
31  it  abolished  the  death  penalty.    A  general  amnesty 
was  proclaimed  and  exiles  in  large  numbers  returned 
from  Siberia  and  were  greeted  with  frenzied  enthu- 
siasm.     The   public   mood   was   optimistic   and   ex- 
cited. 

Revolutions  once  successful  are  difficult  to  arrest 
and  have  a  way  of  passing  rapidly  through  several 
stages,  each  more  radical  than  its  predecessor.     The 


THE  WORLD  WAR  379 

Russian  Revolution  formed  no  exception  to  this  rule, 
but  rather  illustrated  it  afresh.^'XbtC  period  of  rea- 
soned liberalism,,  of  rational  and  ordered  reform  did 
not  last  long-/  The  Socialists  entered  aggressively 
upon  the  scene,  or gSiuiziT^g  Soviets  or  councils  of  w^ork- 
ingmen  and  soldiers.  These  Soviets,  particularly  the 
one  in  Petrograd,  began  to  oppose  the  Provisional 
Government  as  much  as  they  dared  and  to  im- 
pose their  views.  In  regard  to  the  war  the  LvofiE 
ministry  declared  that  free  Russia  did  not  aspire  to 
dominate  other  countries  or  to  get  their  territory, 
but  that  it  would  not  allow  its  own  country  to  come 
out  af.the  war  weakened  or  humiliated.  On  May  2 
it  announced  to  the  Allies  that  Russia  would  continue 
in  the  war  until  a  complete  victory  was  achieved.  The 
Petrograd  Council  or  Soviet,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
in  favor  of  a  general  peace  to  be  secured  by  the  work- 
ers of  all  lands,  and  asserted  that  the  war  had  been 
begun  and  was  being  carried  on  in  the  interest  of 
kings  and  capitalists.  The  Council  was  powerful  as 
representing  the  capital  and  was  striving  hard  to 
dominate  the  Provisional  Government.  On  May  16 
MilyukoflF,  the  able  foreign  minister,  was  forced  out 
of  the  Government  on  the  ground  that  he  was  an  im- 
perialist, as  having  expressed  th^  hope  that  Russia 
would  acquire  Constantinople.'  A  Socialist  was  ap- 
pointed in  his  place  and  Kerensky  now  became  min- 
ister of  war.  This  reorganized  ministry  was  against 
a  separate  peace. 

Kerensky  soon  became  the  dominant  personality 
in  the  Government.  As  minister  of  war  he  endeav- 
ored  to   check   the   demoralization   which   was   mak- 


38o  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

ing  serious  inroads  into  the  army.  Discipline  was 
disappearing,  acts  of  disobedience,  if  not  actual  mu- 
tiny, were  occurring  at  various  poinds.  Kerensky  suc- 
ceeded-for  a  while  in  checking  tl?-^- alarming  disor- 
ganiza;tLon  ^"Tid  6v6n"ni  arousing  the  army  in  Galicia 
to  begin  a  new  "drive"  which  made  an  advance  of 
ten  miles,  only  to  be  brought  to  a  standstill  by  re- 
newed mutinies,  so  that  all  that  had  been  gained  was 
lost  (July,  1917). 

On  July  22,  Kerensky  became  head  of  the  Provi- 
sional Government  and  remained  such  until  he  and 
his  colleagues  werei  overthrown,  on  November  7,  by 
the  Bolsheviki  of  Petrograd.  Kerensky  was  a  Social- 
ist and  was  strongly  opposed  to  a  separate  peace  with 
Germany,  but  was  in  favor  of  a  revision  of  peace 
terms  by  the  Allies  in  the  direction  of  the  formula, 
"  no  annexations,  no  indemnities."  The  breakdown 
of  discipline  in  the  army  continued  to  increase  porten- 
tously. During  the  retreat  in  Galicia,  generals  found 
that  they  were  obliged  to  discuss  their  orders  with 
numerous  committees  of  soldiers,  and  to  secure  their 
consent,  before  those  orders  could  be  executed.  OfH- 
cers  were  in  some  cases  shot  by  their  soldiers.  Large 
numbers  of  troops  retreated  without  making  any  re- 
sistance, so  thoroughly  pacifistic  had  they  become  as 
a  result  of  the  Socialistic  propaganda  carried  on 
among  them.  Kerensky  publicly  characterized  these 
acts  as  shameful  and  labored  incessantly  and  with 
extraordinary  energy  to  stop  the  growing  anarchy  and 
to  restore  the  army  as  a  fighting  force,  necessary  even 
for  the  defense  of  the  country,  for  the  country  was 
again  threatened.     His  efforts  were  unavailing  and 


THE  WORLD  WAR  381 

conditions  steadily  grew  worse.  The  Germans  took 
the  important  city  of  Riga  on  September  2,  with 
practically  no  opposition.  The  shame  and  impotence 
of  a  great  state  were  being  demonstrated  every  day 
anew. 

That  shame  and  that  impotence  were  illustrated  in 
perfection  by  the  policy  and  conduct  of  the  new  rulers 
of  Russia,  the  Bolsheviki,  who  succeeded  in  over- ^ 
throwing  Kerensky  on  November  7,  and  in  seizings 
the  government,  under  the  leadership  of  Lenine  and 
Trotzky.  Several  of  the  ministers  were  arrested,  and 
army  headquarters  were  captured.  Kerensky  man- 
aged to  escape,'  and  was  not  heard  of  again  for  sev- 
eral months,  when  he  finally  appeared  in  London. 
Lenine  became  prime  minister  and  Trotzky  minister 
of  foreign  affairs. 

The  new  Government  announced  its  policy  at  once : 
an  immediate  democratic  peace,  the  confiscation  of 
all  landed  property,  the  recognition  of  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  Soviets  or  workingmen's  and  soldiers' 
councils,  the  election  of  a  constitutional  convention. 
The  Bolsheviki  revealed  themselves  adequately, 
though  not  completely,  in  these  demands.  They  were 
extreme  Socialists,  resolved  to  effect  a  Socialistic  rev- 
olution at  once.  They  were  unwilling  to  fight  Ger- 
mans or  Austrians.  They  were  willing  to  fight  their 
own  fellow-citizens  for  the  purpose  of  robbing  them 
of  their  property.  They  cared  nothing  about  national 
honor.  "  Honor  "  was  not  a  word  in  their  vocabu- 
lary; it  was  only  a  conception  of  hypocritical  capi- 
talists interested  solely  in  feathering  their  own  nests 
and    exploiting    the    downtrodden.      The    Bolsheviki 


382  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

cared  nothing  for  the  good  faith  of  Russia,  for  they 
wished  and  intended  to  desert  Russia's  aUies  and  to 
make  a  separate  peace  with  her  enemies  despite  the 
fact  that  Russia  had  signed  a  treaty  promising  not  to 
make  a  separate  peace.  Their  moral  standards  were 
not  above/considering  a  treaty  a  scrap  of  paper,  were 
not,  therefore,  superior  to  the  standards  of  the  Ger- 
mans, in  whose  pay  they  were  accused  of  being  and 
probably  were.  As  destroyers  of  a  great  nation,  as 
artists  in  anarchy,  as  ruthless  murderers  of  fellow- 
Russians,  they  were  a  great  success. 

It  was  evident  that  with  such  men  in  power  Rus- 
sia's participation  in  the  war  was  over  and  that  the 
burden  imposed  upon  the  Western  Allies  would  be 
far  greater  than  ever.  The  Bolsheviki  immediately 
started  peace  negotiations  with  the  Germans,  con- 
cluding with  them  an  armistice  at  Brest- Litovsk  (De- 
cember 15),  where  three  months  later  they  supinely 
signed  what  was  probably  the  most  disgraceful  and 
disastrous  treaty  known  in  the  history  of  any  Euro- 
pean nation. 

The  Russian  Revolution  and  the  rise  of  the  Bol- 
sheviki brought  about  the  rapid  disintegration,  not 
only  of  the  Russian  people^  but  of  the  Russian  state 
as  a  territorial  entity.  Finland  declared  its  independ- 
ence. The  Ukraine,  an  immense  region  in  the  south, 
did  the  same.  Siberia  later  followed  suit.  The 
Germans  had  control  of  Poland,  Lithuania  and  the 
Baltic  Provinces,  and  consequently  declarations  of  in- 
dependence were  not  in  order  there.  General  Kaledin, 
the  leader  of  the  Cossacks,  declared  war  upon  the 
Bolsheviki  in  the  name  of  the  safety  of  the  country. 


THE  WORLD  WAR  383 

None  of  Russia's  allies  and  none  of  the  neutral  states 
recognized  the  Bolsheviki  as  the  lawful  government 
of  Russia.  That  honor  was  reserved  for  the  Germans 
and  Austrians  and  Turks. 

In  December  the  Constituent  Assembly,  called  by 
the  Bolsheviki,  met  in  Petrograd.  Not  proving  satis- 
factory to  the  latter  at  its  first  session,  they  sent  a 
body  of  sailors  into  the  chamber  to  disperse  it.  That 
ended  the  Constituent  Assembly  and  gave  a  further 
illustration  of  the  meaning  of  the  Bolshevik  formula 
about  the  self-determination  of  peoples. 

The  War  in  1917 

The  revolution  in  Russia  in  its  immediate  eflFectS 
and  the  intervention  of  the  United  States  in  its  pos- 
sible ultimate  effects  were  the  two  most  outstanding 
events  in  the  history  of  1917.  But,  also,  during  that 
year  military  events  of  importance  occurred.  The 
eastern  front  saw  comparatively  little  activity  as,  after 
the  Russian  Revolution,  the  Germans  were  content  to 
watch  the  development  of  affairs  in  that  country 
and  in  the  main  merely  to  guard  the  positions  they 
had  gained  in  Russia  and  Roumania,  probably  in  the 
expectation  of  shortly  imposing  peace  upon  those 
countries  and  then  being  able  to  withdraw  their  troops 
from  them  and  throw  them  with  decisive  force  upon 
the  western  front. 

In  the  early  months  of  1917  the  effects  of  the  Bat- 
tle of  the  Somme  of  the  previous  year  were  shown 
to  be  more  important  than  had  been  supposed,  for 
when  the  English  and  the  French  renewed  their  cam- 
paign in  the  same  region  they  encountered  a  weak- 


384  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

ened  resistance,  the  enemy  withdrawing  before  them. 
Then  ensued,  in  March  and  April,  a  retreat  of  the 
Germans  to  the  famous  "  Hindenburg  Line,"  called  by 
their  leaders  a  "  strategical  retreat."  The  Germans 
retired  along  a  hundred-mile  front,  from  Arras  to 
the  neighborhood  of  Noyon,  evacuating  more  than 
a  thousand  square  miles  of  French  territory  which 
had  formerly  contained  over  three  hundred  towns  and 
villages.  But,  compelled  to  abandon  this  territory, 
they  committed  deeds  which  added  a  new  hideous- 
ness  to  the  name  of  German.  They  devastated  the 
country  as  no  country  in  Europe  had  ever  been 
devastated  before,  and  they  did  it  with  scientific  thor- 
oughness and  wanton  satisfaction.  France  recovered 
only  a  scene  of  indescribable  desolation.  Buildings, 
public  and  private,  schools  and  churches,  works  of 
art,  historical  monuments  and  priceless  historical  rec- 
ords were  ruthlessly  destroyed;  private  homes  were 
stripped  clean  of  furniture  which  was  carted  away 
by  the  Germans,  wells  were  filled  with  dung,  orchards 
were  cut  down,  roads  and  bridges  and  railways  were 
blown  up.  If  they  must  retire  the  Germans  were  re- 
solved to  leave  a  region,  hitherto  one  of  the  most 
fertile  in  France,  ruined  and  blasted  for  years  and 
even  for  decades  to  come.  An  eye-witness  wrote  as 
follows :  "  With  field  glasses  I  could  see  far  on  either 
side  of  every  road  for  miles  and  miles;  every  farm 
is  burned,  fields  destroyed,  every  garden  and  every 
bush  uprooted,  every  tree  sawed  off  close  to  the  bot- 
tom. It  was  a  terrible  sight  and  seemed  almost  worse 
than  the  destruction  of  men.  Those  thousands  of 
trees  prone  upon  the  earth,  their  branches  waving  in 


THE  WORLD  WAR  3^5 

the   wind,    seemed   undergoing   agonies   before    our 
eyes." 

Other  events  on  the  western  front  in  191 7  were: 
the  battle  of  Arras,  fought  by  the  British,  from  April 
to  June,  and  in  the  course  of  which  the  Canadians 
distinguished  themselves  at  Vimy  Ridge;  the  long- 
drawn-out  Battle  of  the  Aisne,  fought  by  the  French 
from  April  to  November,  famous  for  the  fighting 
about  the  Chemin  des  Dames;  the  British  offensive 
in  Flanders,  from  July  to  December,  which  yielded 
Passchendaele  Ridge  and  other  positions,  the  battle 
of  Cambrai,  in  November  and  December,  in  which 
the  Germans  were  compelled  to  retire  several  miles 
on  a  front  of  twenty  miles. 

But  while  on  the  French  front  the  Allies  made  con- 
siderable gains,  in  another  region  they  sustained  a 
serious  reverse,  in  Italy.  The  Italians  had  seized  Go- 
rizia  in  1916  and  in  the  summer  of  1917  they  carried 
on  a  very  successful  offensive  along  the  Isonzo  and 
the  Carso  Plateau.  But  with  the  breakdown  of  Rus- 
sia and  the  spread  of  pacifism  in  the  Russian  armies 
the  Germans  were  able  to  send  large  bodies  of  troops 
and  a  great  quantity  of  heavy  artillery  to  the  aid  of 
their  ally,  Austria.  On  October  28,  1917,  the  Austro- 
German  army  seized  Gorizia;  on  the  30th  Udine  fell; 
a  rapid  retreat  of  the  Italians  followed  to  the  Ta- 
gliamento.  The  Germans  announced  that  they  had 
captured  180,000  prisoners  and  1,500  guns.  The 
Tagliamento  could  not  be  held  and  the  Italians  were 
driven  back  to  the  Piave.  For  days  the  Allied  world 
held  its  breath,  fearing  that  what  had  happened  to 
Serbia  in  1915,  to  Roumania  in  1916,  was  now  in  1917 


386 


FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 


to  happen  to  Italy,  and  that  she  would  be  conquered 
and  eliminated  from  the  war.  But  the  Piave  held  and 
the  attempts  of  the  Central  Powers  to  outflank  it  in 
the  mountains  to  the  north  of  Venetia,  along  the 
Asiago  Plateau  and  other  ridges,  failed.  There  the 
invasion  was  halted.  French  and  English  troops  were 
rushed  to  the  aid  of  Italy  and  their  arrival  greatly 


.Farthest  Italian  Advance. 


.Austrian  Invasion,  October,   1917. 


if  (     Italian  Front 

helped  and  encouraged  the  Italians.  But  the  world 
had  had  a  bad  shock  and  was  apprehensive  still,  lest 
the  Italian  line  should  be  broken.  The  Germans  an- 
nounced that  the  campaign  had  netted  them  300,000 
prisoners  and  nearly  3,000  guns.  Whether  this  was 
true  or  not,  certain  it  was  that  they  had  freed  Aus- 
tria of  the  enemy  and  that  they  now  themselves  occu- 
pied four  thousand  square  miles  of  Italian  territory 


THE  WORLD  WAR  387 

and  that  they  were  in  a  position  to  threaten  the  rich- 
est section  of  Italy,  which  contained,  among  other 
things,  the  great  munition  plants. 

The  Allied  gains  on  the  western  front  and  those 
in  Asia,  which  will  be  referred  to  later,  were  but  a 
slight  comfort  in  view  of  the  Russian  and  Italian  dis- 
asters. The  year  ended  in  gloom  in  the  Allied  camp. 
But  there  was  at  least  some  satisfaction  to  be  derived 
from  the  fact  that  Venice  had  not  been  taken,  and 
that  that  matchless  creation  of  art  had  not  been  de- 
stroyed by  the  barbarism  of  the  enemy  as  had  the  in- 
comparable cathedral  of  Rheinis,  the  masterpiece  of 
Gothic  architecture,  the  living  embodiment  of  French 
history,  whose  every  stone  spoke  of  long  lines  of 
kings — and  of  Joan  of  Arc. 

The  year  1917,  therefore,  closed  in  gloom.  The  col- 
lapse of  Russia,  the  disaster  in  Italy,  were  more  alarm- 
ing in  their  possible,  if  not  probable,  consequences 
than  the  scattered  and  costly  gains  of  the  Allies  on  the 
western  front  and  the  entrance  of  America  into  the 
war,  perhaps  too  late  to  be  of  any  material  value, 
were  reassuring.  In  western  Asia,  it  is  true,  the  year 
brought  some  encouragement  to  the  Allies,  but  how 
durable  or  significant  the  successes  there  would  prove 
to  be  it  was  quite  impossible  to  forecast.  As  the  Ger- 
mans had  loudly  proclaimed  their  intention  to  link 
Berlin  with  Bagdad,  and  erect  a  Middle  Europe,  and  to 
extend  it  through  Turkey  and  the  great  valleys  of  the 
Euphrates  and  the  Tigris,  and  as  this  meant  nothing 
less  than  a  pointed  threat  at  the  British  Empire  in 
India  and  Egypt,  it  was  natural  and  inevitable  that 
England  should  accept  the  German  challenge  in  that 


,  Territory  of  the  Central  Empires 
'  and  Turkey 

I  Territory  invaded  by  Central  Powers 
I  Railroad  to  the  East  and  to  Africa 


Scale  of  Miles 
200  40O 


The  "  Middle   iiuROFE  "   ^icheme 


THE  WORLD  WAR  389 

part  of  the  world  as  she  had  accepted  it  in  western 
Europe  and  on  the  high  seas.  Consequently  as  early 
as  1915  an  expedition  had  been  sent  out  from  India, 
under  General  Townshend,  to  prevent  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  German  plans.  But  the  expedition  failed 
disastrously.  After  having  advanced  two  hundred 
miles  up  the  Tigris  and  after  having  seized  the  city 
of  Kut-el-Amara,  General  Townshend  found  himself 
besieged  in  that  place  by  the  Turks  and  after  a  few 
months,  no  relief  having  reached  him,  he  was  forced 
to  surrender  with  his  entire  army,  about  ten  thou- 
sand men,  on  April  28,  1916,  after  a  siege  of  a  hun- 
dred and  forty-three  days.  Not  only  was  this  a  se- 
rious reverse  in  itself,  but  it  gravely  injured  Great 
Britain's  prestige  in  the  East.  There  was  nothing 
for  her  to  do  but  endeavor  to  repair  the  damage  done. 
She  at  once  organized  another  expedition  on  a  larger 
scale  and  with  more  careful  preparation,  which  she 
sent  into  Mesopotamia  under  General  Maude,  early 
in  1917.  This  expedition  was  successful.  Kut-el- 
Amara  was  recaptured  on  February  24  and  on  March 
II  the  British  entered  Bagdad  in  triumph.  Bagdad 
was  not  of  great  strategic  importance,  but  its  capture 
exercised  a  decided  moral  effect  throughout  the  world. 
Toward  the  close  of  the  year  the  British  achieved 
other  victories  over  the  Turks,  farther  west,  in  Pales- 
tine. During  the  earlier  years  of  the  war  the  Turks 
had  seriously  menaced  England's  control  of  the  Suez 
Canal  and  Egypt.  The  English  resolved  to  eliminate 
this  danger  once  for  all  by  sending  an  army  into 
Palestine,  under  General  Allenby.  This  army  grad- 
ually forced  its  way  northward,  captured  Jaffa,  the 


390  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

seaport  of  Jerusalem,  in  November,  and  entered  Jeru- 
salem itself  in  triumph  on  December  lo,  1917.  Great 
was  the  rejoicing  throughout  the  Christian  world  at 
this  recovery  of  its  sacred  city  after  seven  centuries 
of  Mohammedan  control.  The  achievement  of  the 
mediaeval  Crusaders  was  being  repeated.  Would 
the  new  victory  of  the  Christian  over  the  Infidel 
prove  ephemeral,  as  had  the  earlier  one? 

The  Germans  were  not  downcast  over  the  turn  of 
events  in  these  remote  theaters  of  war.  Nor  had  they 
any  reason  to  be.  On  the  whole,  they  were  hold- 
ing the  western  front,  and  the  eastern  front  had  dis- 
appeared under  the  terrific  blows  they  had  delivered 
to  Russia  and  which  had  laid  her  low.  On  the  22d 
of  December  the  German  Emperor  was  undoubtedly 
expressing  the  prevalent  German  opinion  of  the  gen- 
eral situation  when  he  said  to  the  army  in  France : 
"  The  year  191 7  with  its  great  battles  has  proved  that 
the  German  people  has,  in  the  Lord  of  Creation  above, 
an  unconditional  and  avowed  ally  on  whom  it  can 
absolutely  depend.  ...  If  the  enemy  does  not  want 
peace,  then  we  must  bring  peace  to  the  world  by  bat- 
tering in  with  the  iron  fist  and  shining  sword  the  doors 
of  those  who  will  not  have  peace.  ,  .  .  But  our  ene- 
mies still  hope,  with  the  assistance  of  new  allies,  to 
defeat  you  and  then  to  destroy  forever  the  world  posi- 
tion won  by  Germany  in  hard  endeavor.  They  will 
not  succeed.  Trusting  in  our  righteous  cause  and 
in  our  strength,  we  face  the  year  1918  with  firm  con- 
fidence and  iron  will.  Therefore,  forward  with  God 
to  fresh  deeds  and  fresh  victories!  " 

The  first  of  the  fresh  victories  were  to  be  achieved 


THE  WORLD  WAR  391 

on  the  diplomatic  field  and  were  to  be  supremely  sat- 
isfactory to  the  Germans.  They  consisted  in  the 
treaties  of  peace  imposed  by  them  upon  Russia  and 
Roumania,  and  upon  the  big  fragments  of  former 
Russia  which  had  declared  their  independence,  rather 
than  remain  connected  with  a  country  controlled  by 
the  Bolsheviki,  namely,  the  Ukraine  and  Finland. 

The  Bolsheviki  demanded  immediate  peace  and 
when  they  succeeded  in  driving  Kerensky  from 
power,  and  themselves  assumed  control,  they  began 
negotiations  to  that  end.  They  signed  an  armistice 
at  Brest-Litovsk,  the  German  army  headquarters,  on 
December  15,  1917.  The  leading  personages  in  the 
ensuing  discussions  were  Kiihlmann  for  Germany, 
Czernin  for  Austria-Hungary,  and  Trotzky  for  Russia. 
The  negotiations  were  long  and  frequently  stormy. 
Trotzky  urged  that  the  peace  be  based  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  "  no  annexations,  no  indemnities."  The  Cen- 
tral Powers  pretended  to  accept  this  formula.  Their 
insincerity  and  duplicity  in  announcing  their  adhesion 
to  this  principle  and  to  that  of  the  right  of  peoples 
to  determine  their  own  allegiance  were  shortly  made 
apparent.  They  refused  to  withdraw  their  troops 
from  the  occupied  parts  of  Russia  and  they  indicated 
clearly  that  their  aims  were  the  opposite  of  their  pro- 
fessions. At  this  Trotzky  balked  and  withdrew  from 
the  conference  and  the  Russian  Government  an- 
nounced that  it  would  not  sign  "  an  annexationist 
treaty,"  but  at  the  same  time  it  announced  that  the 
war  was  at  an  end  and  it  ordered  the  complete  de- 
mobilization of  the  Russian  troops  on  all  fronts, 

Germany,  however,  refused  to  accept  this  solution 


392  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

of  "  no  war,  but  no  peace."  It  insisted  on  a  treaty 
in  black  and  white.  As  the  negotiations  had  been 
broken  off  by  the  departure  of  the  Russian  delegates 
on  February  lo,  the  German  army  immediately  as- 
sumed the  offensive  and  began  a  fresh  invasion  of 
Russia,  advancing  on  a  front  of  five  hundred  miles 
and  to  within  seventy  miles  of  Petrograd.  This 
speedily  brought  the  Russians  to  terms  and  they 
signed  on  March  3,  1918,  the  Treaty  of  Brest-Litovsk, 
the  most  notorious  "  annexationist  treaty  "  on  record. 
Its  principal  provisions  were :  Russia  surrendered  all 
claims  to  Poland,  Lithuania,  Courland,  Livonia,  and 
Esthonia;  she  also  renounced  all  claims  to  Finland 
and  the  Ukraine  and  agreed  to  recognize  their  inde- 
pendence and  to  make  peace  with  them;  she  sur- 
rendered Batum,  Erivan,  and  Kars  in  the  Caucasus  to 
Turkey,  and  she  promised  to  cease  all  revolutionary 
propaganda  in  the  ceded  regions  and  in  the  countries 
of  the  Central  Alliance. 

Subsequently  and  in  direct  violation  of  the  plain 
intent  of  one  of  the  articles  of  the  treaty,  the  promise 
of  a  large  money  indemnity  was  exacted  from  Russia. 

By  this  treaty  Russia  lost  an  enormous  territory, 
about  half  a  million  square  miles,  a  territory  more 
than  twice  as  large  as  the  German  Empire.  She  lost 
a  population  of  about  65,000,000,  which  was  about 
that  of  the  German  Empire.  A  year  or  less  of  Bol- 
shevism had  sufHced  to  undo  the  work  of  all  the  Rus- 
sian Emperors  from  Peter  the  Great  to  Nicholas  II. 
So  complete  a  mutilation  of  a  great  country  Europe 
had  never  seen.  Russia  was  thrust  back  into  the  con- 
dition in  which  she  had  been  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 


1918 
SHOWING  TERRITORY  SURRENDERED  BY  RUSSIA 

Scale  of  Miles 


TURKEY     IN      ASIA 


394  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE  '    '  ^ 

tury  and  which  even  then  was  found  intolerable. 
Never  in  modern  times  has  a  great  power  surren- 
dered such  vast  territories  by  a  single  stroke  of  the 
pen.  Pacifism  and  internationalism  had  borne  their 
natural  fruit  with  unexpected  swiftness.  Gorky,  the 
Russian  noveHst,  and  considered  a  radical  until  the 
Bolsheviki  appeared  and  gave  a  new  extension  to 
that  word,  has  estimated  that  this  treaty  robbed  Rus- 
sia of  37  per  cent  of  her  manufacturing  industries, 
75  per  cent  of  her  coal,  and  73  per  cent  of  her 
iron. 

What  the  future  of  the  ceded  territories  should  be 
was  not  indicated  beyond  the  statement  that  "  Ger- 
many and  Austria-Hungary  intend  to  decide  the  fu- 
ture fate  of  these  territories  by  agreement  with  their 
population."  A  few  weeks  later  the  Central  Powers 
dictated  a  pitiless  treaty  to  Roumania,  forcing  large 
cessions  of  territory  and  minutely  and  ingeniously 
squeezing  her  of  her  economic  resources  for  their  ad- 
vantage. 

The  Treaty  of  Brest-Litovsk  laid  bare  the  soul  of 
modern  Germany.  It  proved  to  all  the  world  that, 
whatever  her  professions  might  be,  her  greed  was  un- 
abashed and  unrestrained.  And  this  greed  was  char- 
acteristic not  simply  of  her  rulers,  military  and  civil. 
All  Germany  applauded.  The  same  Reichstag  which 
in  July,  191 7,  had  voted  in  favor  of  the  principle  of 
"  no  annexations,  no  indemnities,"  now  enthusiasti- 
cally ratified  the  treaty  of  Brest-Litovsk,  the  Socialists 
joining  in.  The  rest  of  the  world  now  knew,  if  it  had 
not  known  before,  what  it  might  expect,  if  it  was 
force  to  pass  under  the  same  yoke.    Germany  stood 


THE  WORLD  WAR  395 

completely  unmasked.     Her  ideal  was  revealed  in  all 
its  nakedness. 

Having  arranged  matters  in  the  east  to  her  satis- 
faction, and  no  longer  threatened  or  preoccupied  in 
that  quarter,  Germany  now  turned  practically  her  en- 
tire attention  to  the  western  front,  confident  that,  by 
concentrated  energy  of  attack,  she  could  at  last  con- 
quer there  and  snatch  the  victory  which  had  so  long 
eluded  her  and  which  would  end  the  war.  Transfer- 
ring thither  her  large  eastern  armies,  she  was  con- 
fident that  now  she  could  compel  a  decision  and  could 
force  a  settlement  to  her  taste.  One  more  campaign 
in  France  and  all  would  be  well.  The  spring  drive 
was  to  be  begun  early,  the  intention  being  to  sepa- 
rate the  French  and  English  armies,  and  then  defeat 
each  in  turn  swiftly — before  the  Americans  should  ar- 
rive in  any  such  numbers  as  to  be  able  to  influence 
the  course  of  events. 

The  War  in  1918 

The  drive  opened  on  March  21,  1918.  The  mood 
in  which  it  was  begun  was  expressed  by  the  Kaiser 
the  day  before :  "  The  prize  of  victory,"  said  he, 
"  must  not  and  will  not  fail  us.  No  soft  peace,  but 
one  corresponding  to  Germany's  interests."  A  month 
later  the  German  financial  secretary  added  an  append- 
ant to  this  imperial  thought  when  he  said  in  the 
Reichstag  on  April  23 :  "  We  do  not  yet  know  the 
amount  of  the  indemnity  which  we  shall  win." 

This  great  offensive,  the  greatest  of  the  war,  opened 
auspiciously  and  for  three  months  proceeded  accord- 


396  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

ing  to  the  heart's  desire.  It  was  ushered  in  by  the 
greatest  gas  attack  Europe  had  ever  known ;  also  by 
a  long-distance  bombardment  of  Paris  by  a  new  gun 
of  greater  range  than  any  previous  gun  had  possessed. 
The  ensuing  attack  was  one  of  terrific  force  and  was 
designed  to  spring  the  French  and  English  armies 
apart  at  their  point  of  juncture.  The  objective  was 
Amiens.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  English  left  was,  in 
the  next  few  days,  driven  back  toward  Arras  and 
the  English  center  driven  beyond  the  Somme.  This 
actually  made  an  opening.  The  English  front  was 
broken  and  a  great  disaster  might  have  easily  re- 
sulted, for  the  Germans  now  tried  to  turn  the  Eng- 
Hsh  right  by  cavalry.  They  were,  however,  met  and 
checked  by  French  cavalry  just  in  the  nick  of  time. 
But  between  March  21  and  March  28  the  Germans 
made  great  progress.  Town  after  town  fell  into  their 
hands,  Peronne,  Bapaume,  Ham,  Albert,  Noyon, 
Montdidier.  It  was  at  this  critical  moment  that  Gen- 
eral Pershing  placed  all  the  forces  under  his  command 
absolutely  at  the  disposal  of  Marshal  Foch  to  be  used 
as  he  might  see  fit.  Foch,  so  great  was  the  danger, 
the  greatest  since  the  Battle  of  the  Marne,  had  been 
appointed  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Allied  Armies 
on  the  Western  Front  on  March  28.  At  last  the 
Allies  had  achieved  unity  of  command. 

After  a  slight  pause  the  Germans  attacked  the 
English  in  the  north,  in  Flanders  at  the  point  where 
their  army  and  the  Portuguese  were  joined.  By  April 
12  the  English  had  been  forced  to  make  a  consid- 
erable retreat.  It  was  then  that  General  Haig  issued 
a  special  order  to  his  men  which  would  have  discour- 


THE  WORLD  WAR  397 

aged  and  demoralized  men  less  self-reliant  and  less 
fond  of  the  blunt  truth,  however  unpleasant.  This 
utterance  of  the  English  commander  will  remain  his- 
toric : 

"  Three  weeks  ago  to-day  the  enemy  began  his  ter- 
rific attacks  against  us  on  a  fifty-mile  front.  His  ob- 
jects are  to  separate  us  from  the  French,  to  take  the 
Channel  ports,  and  to  destroy  the  British  Army.  .  .  . 
Words  fail  me  to  express  the  admiration  which  I 
feel  for  the  splendid  resistance  offered  by  all  ranks 
of  our  army  under  the  most  trying  circumstances. 

"  Many  among  us  are  now  tired.  To  those  I  would 
say  that  victory  will  belong  to  the  side  which  holds 
out  the  longest.  The  French  Army  is  moving  rapidly 
and  in  great  force  to  our  support.  There  is  no  other 
course  open  to  us  but  to  fight  it  out. 

"  Every  position  must  be  held  to  the  last  man. 
There  must  be  no  retirement.  With  our  backs  to 
the  wall,  and  believing  in  the  justice  of  our  cause, 
each  one  of  us  must  fight  to  the  end.  The  safety  of 
our  homes  and  the  freedom  of  mankind  depend  alike 
upon  the  conduct  of  each  one  of  us  at  this  critical 
moment." 

The  bitterest  fighting  continued  and  the  British  lost 
important  positions  near  Ypres,  the  famous  Messines 
and  Wytschaete  ridges,  and  then  Mount  Kemmel. 
But  French  reinforcements  came  and  the  Germans 
were  checked.     Ypres  still  held  out. 

The  Germans  had  suffered  very  severe  losses  in 
making  these  attacks  and  gains.  They  needed  time 
to  reorganize  their  exhausted  divisions.  Apparently, 
too,  there  was  a  change  at  this  moment  in  their  high 


398  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

command,  Ludendorff  succeeding  Hindenburg.  Sud- 
denly, on  May  27,  Ludendorff  launched  a  new  at- 
tack in  an  unexpected  quarter  on  a  forty-mile  front, 
from  Soissons  to  Rheims.  On  the  29th  Soissons  fell. 
The  Germans  advanced  rapidly.  By  May  31  they 
were  at  the  Marne  once  more  after  four  years.  In 
four  days  they  had  taken  45,000  prisoners  and  an  enor- 
mous amount  of  war  material.  They  were  held  at 
Chateau-Thierry  on  June  2  by  French  reserves  which 
were  rushed  to  the  scene.  The  Germans  were  within 
forty  miles  of  Paris  and  had  gained  nearly  a  thousand 
square  miles  of  territory. 

The  Americans  were  beginning  to  count.  On  June 
2  the  Marines  captured  Cantigny  and  two  hundred 
and  forty  prisoners.  Two  days  later  they  helped  to 
check  the  Germans  at  Chateau-Thierry.  They  also 
foiled  an  attack  in  Neuilly  Wood,  advanced  two-thirds 
of  a  mile  and  took  two  hundred  and  seventy  prison- 
ers. On  June  6  and  7  they  advanced  two  miles  on 
a  front  of  six  miles  and  seized  Torchy  and  Bouresches. 
A  Httle  later  they  occupied  Belleau  Wood.  These 
were  details,  but  useful  and  auspicious. 

On  June  9  the  Germans  made  an  attack  on  a  front 
of  twenty  miles  from  Montdidier  to  Noyon,  pressing 
the  French  center  back  several  miles,  but  at  great 
cost.    Then  came  a  lull. 

On  July  15  they  began  their  fifth  and  final  drive 
in  this  remarkably  successful  campaign.  Attacking 
on  a  sixty-mile  front  east  and  west  of  Rheims,  they 
pushed  forward,  crossed  the  Marne  at  several  points, 
and  were  evidently  aiming  at  Chalons.  They  seized 
Chateau-Thierry. 


THE  WORLD  WAR  399 

From  March  21  to  July  18,  1918,  the  Germans  had 
carried  on  a  colossal  offensive  and  had  taken  many 
prisoners,  much  territory,  and  enormous  booty.  They 
were  astride  the  rivers  that  lead  down  to  Paris,  itself 
not  far  away.  Might  not  one  or  two  more  pushes 
give  them  the  coveted  capital  of  France  and  seal  the 
doom  of  the  Allied  cause?  Elated  by  four  months  of 
victories,  which  had  brought  them  nearer  and  nearer 
the  intended  prey,  inflamed  by  visions  of  imminent 
and  unparalleled  success,  they  were  eager  for  the  final 
spring.  Then  all  would  be  over  and  a  peace  could  be 
imposed  upon  the  West  similar  to  that  imposed  upon 
the  East  at  Brest-Litovsk.  The  world  would  recog- 
nize its  master,  would  be  reshaped  according  to 
Hohenzollern  ideas,  and  would  henceforth  receive  its 
marching  orders  from  Berlin. 

Not  many  graver  moments,  if  any,  have  ever  oc- 
curred in  history.  The  world  stood  gripped  by  an 
intensity  of  anxiety  and  apprehension  painful,  heart- 
sinking,  intolerable.  Particularly  in  America  did  a 
great  and  desolating  wave  of  dread  and  foreboding 
sweep  over  the  public  mind.  Minutes  seemed  like 
hours  and  hours  like  weeks,  so  racking  was  the  sus- 
pense. Had  we  arrived  too  late?  We  had  been  so 
slow  in  seeing  our  duty,  in  recognizing  our  respon- 
sibility in  the  desperate  drama  of  our  times,  we  had 
finally  entered  the  war  so  unprepared,  that  it  seemed 
only  too  likely  that  we  were  to  pay,  and  that  the 
world  was  to  pay,  a  grievous  price  for  our  tardy  per- 
ception and  decision.  And  would  that  price  include, 
for  us,  not  only  national  insecurity,  but  national  dis- 
honor and  disgrace?    The  answer  to  these  questions 


400  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

hung  upon  events,  and  events  thus  far  had  not  been 
reassuring,  had,  on  the  contrary,  seemed  to  be  con- 
verging tow^ard  disaster. 

We  had  done  much  in  material  ways  for  the  com- 
mon cause  since  our  entrance  into  the  war.  Our 
navy,  efficient  and  ready,  had  begun,  from  the  first 
day,  to  render  useful  and  important  services.  By  the 
close  of  1917  we  had  less  than  200,000  men  in  France. 
How  many  of  these  were  prepared  for  front-line  work 
it  is  impossible  to  say.  But  certainly  they  were  far 
too  few  for  the  emergency.  On  March  27  Lloyd- 
George,  the  British  prime  minister,  made  an  urgent 
appeal  for  "  American  reinforcements  in  the  shortest 
possible  space  of  time  "  and  declared  that  "  we  are 
at  the  crisis  of  the  war,  attacked  by  an  immense 
superiority  of  German  troops."  The  appeal  was 
answered.  From  then  on  there  was  a  rapid  and 
increasing  movement  of  American  troops  to  Europe, 
83,000  in  March,  117,000  in  April,  244,000  in  May, 
278,000  in  June,  and  by  the  end  of  July  there  were 
1,300,000  American  soldiers  in  France.  By  Novem- 
ber there  were  more  than  two  million. 

So  desperate  was  the  situation  in  midsummer, 
1918,  that  the  French  Government  was  prepared  at 
any  moment  to  leave  Paris,  as  it  had  done  in  1914. 

But  this  moment  was  never  to  come.  For  Mar- 
shal Foch  now  struck  a  blow  which  freed  Paris  from 
danger,  and  which  inaugurated  a  new  and,  as  we 
now  see,  the  final  phase  of  the  war.  On  July  18 
he  assumed  the  offensive,  attacking  the  enemy  on 
the  flank  from  Chateau-Thierry  on  the  Marne  to  the 
River  Aisne.    With  French  and  American  troops  he 


THE  WORLD  WAR  401 

took  the  Germans  by  surprise,  and  achieved  a  bril- 
liant success.  His  entire  line  advanced  from  four  to 
six  miles,  reclaiming  twenty  villages.  Thousands  of 
prisoners  v^^ere  taken,  the  Americans  alone  capturing 
over  four  thousand.  A  large  number  of  guns  were 
also  seized.  On  the  following  days,  the  counter- 
offensive  continued.  Each  day  it  achieved  successes; 
each  day  it  gained  additional  momentum.  The  Allied 
world  passed  through  a  new  experience.  An  unin- 
terrupted series  of  triumphs  for  the  armies  of  Mar- 
shal Foch  filled  the  days  and  then  the  weeks,  after 
he  had  seized  the  initiative  on  July  18. 

By  July  21  the  Germans,  threatened  on  the  flank, 
were  forced  to  withdraw  the  troops  which  had  crossed 
the  Marne.  The  Second  Battle  of  the  Marne  was 
over  and  took  its  place  in  history,  alongside  the  First 
Battle  of  the  Marne,  having  accomplished  the  same 
deHverance  of  Paris  and  having  begun  the  deliver- 
ance of  France.  In  that  battle  Americans  had  taken 
an  important  part,  although  it  should  not  be  exagger- 
ated. Seventy  per  cent  of  the  troops  participating 
in  it  were  French.  Forced  to  recross  the  Marne,  the 
Germans  next  took  their  stand  on  the  River  Vesle. 
Bitter  fighting  occurred  there.  Again  they  were  com- 
pelled to  retreat,  and  their  next  stand  was  at  the  Aisne. 
Week  after  week  their  backward  movement  con- 
tinued, stubbornly  yet  unsuccessfully  contested. 
Foch's  counter-offensive  widened  out  far  to  the  east 
of  Rheims,  far  to  the  north  of  Soissons.  Between 
the  Argonne  Forest  and  the  River  Meuse  the  main 
American  army,  entrusted  with  a  formidable  and  dif- 
ficult task,  fought  desperately  day  after  day,  pushing 


402  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

steadily  but  slowly  and  at  great  cost  farther  and 
farther  north.  West  of  the  Argonne  the  French 
were  driving  the  Germans  back. 

At  the  same  time,  the  French  and  the  British,  with 
contingents  of  the  other  Allies,  Italians,  Belgians, 
Portuguese,  Americans,  interspersed,  were  attacking 
various  points  in  the  long  line  from  Soissons  to  the 
English  Channel.  All  these  scattered  attacks,  care- 
fully coordinated,  were  but  parts  of  a  comprehensive 
plan  elaborated  by  Marshal  Foch,  who  was  now  re- 
vealing himself  to  the  world  as  the  master-intellect  of 
the  war.  One  does  not  know  which  to  admire  the  more, 
the  incomparable  conception  of  this  campaign  or  the 
marvelous  execution.  Unremitting  pressure  every- 
where, damaging  thrusts  here  and  there,  such  was 
the  evident  policy,  the  purpose  being  to  maintain  in 
Allied  hands  the  initiative  and  the  offensive  which 
had  been  seized  on  the  fateful  July  i8.  Without  haste, 
without  rest,  all  through  August  and  September  and 
October,  the  gigantic  assault  continued.  The  Allies 
steadily  advanced  as  victors  over  ground  which  a 
short  time  before  they  had  been  compelled  to  aban- 
don. Verdun  was  freed  from  the  German  menace, 
so  was  Rheims,  so  was  Ypres.  It  would  be  impossi- 
ble in  any  brief  space,  or,  indeed,  at  length,  even  to 
catalogue  the  long  list  of  incidents  and  events,  in 
themselves  often  of  great  importance  and  interest, 
in  this  vast  and  complicated  movement.  Many  towns 
and  villages,  some  of  them  in  possession  of  the  Ger- 
mans since  1914,  were  recovered.  All  that  the  Ger- 
mans had  won  in  their  drive  from  March  21  to  July 
18  was  lost,  and  the  Allies  then  pressed  on  to  con- 


THE  WORLD  WAR  403 

quer  the  rest  of  the  territory  of  France,  held  so  long 
by  the  Germans,  to  smash  their  retreating  lines,  wher- 
ever established,  and  to  hurl  them  out  of  France  and 
out  of  Belgium. 

One  detail  of  importance  and  of  great  interest  to 
Americans  in  this  general  campaign  was  the  elimi- 
nation of  the  St.  Mihiel  salient  by  Pershing's  troops 
on  September  12-13. 

By  the  end  of  September,  after  paying  a  heavy 
price  for  their  retreat,  the  Germans  were  back  on 
the  famous  Hindenburg  Line,  an  intricate  and  pow- 
erful system  of  defenses  which  they  had  for  years 
been  building.  Here  they  planned  to  hold,  and  then 
to  institute  an  aggressive  peace  propaganda  among 
the  nations  supposed  to  be  tired  of  war.  The  only 
way  to  block  this  purpose  was  to  smash  the  Hinden- 
burg Line  and  to  compel  the  enemy  to  hurry  on  in- 
cessantly toward  Germany.     Could  this  be  done? 

The  Battle  of  the  Hindenburg  Line  will  perhaps 
rank  in  history  as  the  decisive  battle  of  the  Great  War, 
as  momentous  as  the  "  Battle  of  the  Nations "  at 
Leipsic  in  1813,  which  foreshadowed  the  doom  of  the 
Napoleonic  Empire.  In  each  case  the  arrogant  dream 
of  world  power  was  summarily  dissipated.  As,  after 
Leipsic,  France  had  been  invaded,  so,  after  the  Bat- 
tle of  the  Hindenburg  Line,  the  invasion  of  Germany 
seemed  possible  and  likely.  Napoleon,  in  a  few 
months,  had  been  compelled  to  abdicate.  Might  his- 
tory repeat  itself,  after  an  interval  of  a  hundred  and 
five  years?  The  climax  of  the  four  years'  war  was 
rapidly  approaching. 

The  battle  opened  on  September  26,  with  attacks 


404  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

on  the  two  widely  separated  flanks.  On  that  day 
the  first  American  Army  under  General  Liggett,  in 
conjunction  with  a  French  army  under  Gouraud, 
moved  against  the  Germans  on  the  German  left.  The 
Americans  fouglit  between  the  Argonne  Forest  and 
the  Meuse  and  at  first  advanced  swiftly,  taking  many 
villages.  Gouraud  on  the  other  side  of  the  Argonne 
pushed  forward.  The  Franco-America  drive  was  not 
halted,  but  rendered  slower  when  German  reserves 
were  rushed  to  the  scene. 

Meanwhile  Belgian  and  British  troops  had  attacked 
the  German  right  flank  far  to  the  north  in  Belgium 
and  had  been  successful  in  driving  a  wedge  between 
the  Germans  on  the  Belgian  coast  and  those  in  the 
region  of  Lille.  Again  reserves  were  rushed  by  Lu- 
dendorfif  to  meet  this  danger.  But  neither  here  in 
Flanders  nor  at  the  other  extremity  in  the  Argonne 
was  the  Allied  pressure  relaxed. 

Finally  Foch  was  ready  for  his  chief  blow.  On 
October  8  he  attacked  the  enemy,  anxious  about  both 
flanks,  in  the  center.  The  attack  was  made  between 
Cambrai  and  St.  Quentin  by  three  British  armies 
under  Byng,  Rawlinson  and  Home,  aided  by  the 
French  under  Debeney.  Here  the  British  achieved 
perhaps  the  greatest  victory  in  their  history.  Hope, 
repeatedly  deferred,  was  realized  at  last.  In  three 
days  the  British  drove  straight  through  the  Hinden- 
burg  Line  on  a  front  of  twelve  miles,  and  where  it 
was  strongest,  and  then  pushed  on  into  the  open 
country.  That  boasted  defense  was  no  longer 
invincible.  St.  Quentin  fell  and  so,  shortly,  did 
Cambrai. 


WESTERN  FRONT 

Battle  line  Ma r.21 ,1918 


Nov.II,   " 

German  advance    »'    

Scale  in  ^£les 


4o6  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

The  consequences  of  this  breaking  of  the  Hinden- 
burg  Line  were  enormous.     The  British  pushed  on 
toward  Valenciennes.     Activity  was  redoubled  along 
the  two  flanks  and  soon  advances  were  made  pretty- 
much  along  the  whole  line  from  the  English  Chan- 
nel to  Verdun.    It  was  a  wonderful  cooperative  move- 
ment, with  glory  enough  for  all  the  Allies,  and   to 
spare.      Laon,    a   tremendous    stronghold,   was   soon 
evacuated.     By   October    i6  the   Germans  had  had  to 
give  up  the  Belgian  coast,  Ostend,  Zeebrugge.    Then 
Lille,   Roubaix,   and   Turcoing  were   evacuated.      In 
three  weeks  an  amazing  victory  had  been  won  over 
positions  selected  and  long  prepared  by  the  Germans 
themselves.     The   Americans  pushed   steadily   down 
the  Meuse.     After  October  i6  it  was  merely  a  ques- 
tion of  time  when  the  Germans  would  inevitably  be 
driven   back  into   their  own   country.      Each   subse- 
quent day  continued  the  tale  of  territory  recovered, 
of  towns  captured,  of  a  growing  demoralization  of  the 
German  army.     The  greatest  battle  of  the  war  had 
been  decisively  won.     It  only  remained  to  gather  in 
the    harvest.      The    superiority    of    French    military 
science  over  German  military  science  was  established, 
and  the  name  of  Marshal  Foch  took  its  place  among 
the  greatest  names  of  military  history. 

Meanwhile  in  other  theaters  of  this  far-flung  war 
momentous  events  were  occurring,  contributing  pow- 
erfully to  the  gathering  culmination.  From  every 
front  and  with  each  new  day  came  news  of  victories 
so  astounding  and  so  decisive  and  attended  with  con- 
sequences so  immediate  and  far-reaching  that  it  was 
evident  that  the  hour  of  supreme  triumph  was  rapidly 


THE  WORLD  WAR  407 

approaching-,  that  a  terrible  chapter  in  the  history  of 
humanity  was  drawing  to  a  close. 

From  Palestine  came  the  news  that  Allenby,  who 
had  taken  Jerusalem  in  December,  1917,  was  on  the 
go  again.  With  an  army  of  125,000  men,  among 
whom  was  a  small  French  contingent,  he  carried  out  a 
brilliant  campaign  against  the  Turks.  Beginning  in 
the  middle  of  September,  and  making  a  rapid  and  con- 
summate use  of  cavalry,  he  was  able  to  get  around 
them  and  in  their  rear,  enveloping  them,  and  deliver- 
ing a  staggering  blow  in  the  plains  of  Samaria.  In 
the  course  of  a  few  days,  Allenby  captured  70,000 
prisoners  and  700  guns  and  practically  all  the  sup- 
plies of  the  Turkish  army.  Following  up  this  victory 
he  pushed  up  to  Damascus,  which  he  entered  on 
October  i,  1918,  taking  7,000  prisoners.  On  October 
6  a  French  squadron  seized  Beirut,  the  chief  seaport 
of  Syria.  Then  began  a  rapid  drive  toward  Aleppo, 
the  object  being  to  cut  the  Bagdad  railway  and  thus 
isolate  the  Turks  who  were  fighting  in  Mesopotamia. 
On  October  15  Homs,  halfway  between  Damascus 
and  Aleppo,  fell,  and  also  the  port  of  Tripoli  on  the 
coast.  A  few  days  later  Aleppo  was  taken.  The  fate 
of  Mesopotamia,  Syria,  Palestine,  and  Arabia  was 
decided.  Those  regions,  which  for  centuries  had  been 
under  the  blight  of  Turkish  rule,  were  now  freed. 
The  Turkish  Empire  in  that  quarter  of  the  world  was 
a  thing  of  the  past.  Also  the  dream  of  a  German 
road  from  Berlin  to  Bagdad  was  now  shattered. 

And  while  the  Turkish  Empire  was  being  ampu- 
tated in  the  East,  it  was  being  effectively  isolated 
in   the  West.     Bulgaria,  which   borders   Turkey   in 


408  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

Europe,  was  being  eliminated  from  the  war.  Almost 
at  the  very  time  that  Allenby  began  his  attack  in  Sa- 
maria, Franchet  d'Esperey,  a  hero  of  the  First  Bat- 
tle of  the  Marne,  and  now  commander  of  the  Allied 
army  in  the  Balkans,  an  army  consisting  of  French, 
British,  Greek,  Serbian,  and  Italian  troops,  attacked 
the  Bulgarians  between  the  Vardar  and  the  Cerna 
Rivers,  and  broke  their  lines  in  two,  rendering  their 
position  highly  critical.  Ten  days  later,  on  Septem- 
ber 29,  Bulgaria  signed  an  armistice  which  meant 
nothing  less  than  unconditional  surrender.  She 
agreed  to  evacuate  all  the  Greek  and  Serbian  terri- 
tory which  she  had  occupied,  to  demobilize  her  army, 
to  permit  the  Allied  troops  to  use  any  strategic  points 
in  Bulgaria  they  might  wish  to,  as  well  as  all  means 
of  communication.  Bulgaria  was  thus  out  of  the  war. 
The  Berlin-Bagdad  dream  was  twice  dead.  Railroad 
communication  between  Turkey  and  Germany  was 
cut.  The  grandiose  German  plan  of  a  Middle-Europe. 
of  which  the  world  had  heard  so  much,  was  rapidly 
being  shoved  into  the  lumber-room  of  damaged  and 
discarded  gimcracks.  Turkey  was  verging  swiftly  to- 
ward her  fate.  Serbia  was  quickly  reconquered  by 
the  Serbians  and  for  the  Serbians,  and  it  could  only 
be  a  question  of  a  short  time  before  Roumania  would 
be  able  to  rise  again  and  denounce  the  infamous 
Treaty  of  Bucharest  which  Germany  and  Austria- 
Hungary  had  imposed  upon  her  less  than  five  months 
before,  on  May  7,  1918,  a  treaty  which  had  practi- 
cally robbed  her  of  her  independence,  both  economic 
and  political. 

It  was  a  matter  of  detail,  though  pleasing  in  itself, 


THE  WORLD  WAR  409 

when  on  October  3  the  self-styled  Czar  of  Bulgaria, 
Ferdinand,  who  had  ruled  for  thirty-one  years,  abdi- 
cated in  favor  of  his  son,  Crown  Prince  Boris,  twenty- 
four  years  of  age.  Ferdinand  was  the  second  of  the 
Balkan  kings  to  lose  his  throne  as  a  result  of  his  con- 
duct in  the  world  war,  Constantine  of  Greece  having 
preceded  him  into  exile  in  June,  1917.  The  new  King 
Boris  was  destined  to  rule  one  month  only,  when  a 
popular  revolution  on  November  i  overturned  the 
throne  and  drove  him  from  the  land.  The  Czardom 
of  Bulgaria  became  a  republic. 

While  such  shattering  events  were  occurring  in  the 
East,  in  the  Balkans  and  in  France,  the  war  flamed 
up  once  more  in  Italy.  It  was  in  October,  1917,  that 
Italy  had  suffered  her  great  and  dangerous  reverse. 
It  was  then  that  she  was  thrown  out  of  Austria,  across 
the  Isonzo,  and  that  she  herself  was  invaded  as  far 
as  the  Piave.  She  had  experienced  colossal  losses  in 
men  and  in  equipment.  A  year  from  that  date,  Octo- 
ber, 1918,  restored  in  morale  and  reinvigorated  in 
every  way,  Italy  assumed  the  offensive  against  the 
Austrians.  Her  attack  was  successful  from  the  start 
and  in  the  succeeding  days  grew  portentously  until 
she  achieved  an  amazing  triumph  which  largely  ef- 
faced the  memories  of  the  previous  year.  The  hostile 
line  was  broken  and  the  Austrians  were  compelled  to 
withdraw  pell-mell  toward  their  own  country.  It  was 
a  rout  and  resulted  in  the  loss  of  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  prisoners  and  thousands  of  big  guns. 

The  atmosphere  was  clearing  rapidly  owing  to  these 
decisive  events.  Both  Turkey  and  Austria  were  ready 
to  quit  the  war.    Both  asked  an  armistice.    On  Octo- 


4IO  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

ber  31  the  Allied  Powers  granted  an  armistice  to 
Turkey  on  terms  that  amounted  to  unconditional  sur- 
render. The  Dardanelles  and  the  Bosporus  were  to 
be  freely  opened  to  the  Allies,  who  might  also  occupy 
the  forts  that  protected  them.  Access  to  the  Blacl^ 
Sea  was  thus  guaranteed.  The  Turkish  army  was 
to  be  immediately  demobilized.  The  Allies  were  to 
have  the  right  to  occupy  any  strategic  points  they 
might  desire  or  need  to.  Other  terms  completed  the 
defeat  of  Turkey  and  registered  her  exit  from  the 
war. 

The  armistice  granted  Austria  on  November  4  con- 
tained similar  conditions  and  also  conditions  even 
more  severe.  The  Austro-Hungarian  armies  must  be 
demobilized  and  must  relinquish  to  the  Allies  and  the 
United  States  a  large  part  of  their  equipment.  Aus- 
tria must  evacuate  all  territories  occupied  since  the 
beginning  of  the  war.  Practically,  too,  she  must  give 
up  the  Trentino,  Trieste,  Istria,  and  a  part  of  the 
Dalmatian  coast.  All  military  and  railway  equipment 
must  be  left  where  it  was  and  be  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Allies.  All  German  troops  must  be  evacuated 
from  Austria  within  fifteen  days.  All  Allied  pris- 
oners held  by  Austria  must  be  immediately  restored 
to  the  Allies.  A  large  part  of  the  Austrian  navy  must 
be  handed  over.  Several  other  provisions  only  em- 
phasized in  detail  Austria's  complete  defeat. 

Meanwhile  Austria-Hungary  was  in  rapid  process 
of  disintegration.  Every  dispatch  brought  news  of 
popular  outbreaks  from  all  parts  of  the  Dual  Mon- 
archy. The  Czecho-Slovaks  declared  their  independ- 
ence, dethroned  the  monarch,  and  proclaimed  a  re- 


THE  WORLD  WAR  411 

public.  Hungary  declared  her  independence  and  ap- 
parently prepared  to  become  a  republic.  It  was  ru- 
mored that  Emperor  Karl  had  fled,  had  abdicated, 
had  been  deposed.  The  truth  was  hard  to  discover, 
reports  being  so  fragmentary  and  conflicting.  Vienna 
evidently  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  revolutionists  and 
socialists  and  the  German  sections  of  Austria  were 
said  to  have  likewise  declared  their  independence. 
The  ancient  empire  was  breaking  up  and  several  new 
states  were  rapidly  evolving.  Nationalistic,  demo- 
cratic, and  socialistic  forces  were  struggling  for  rec- 
ognition and  control.  What  the  ultimate  outcome 
would  be  no  man  could  tell.  The  very  winds  had 
been  let  loose.  Whether  the  House  of  Hapsburg 
still  existed  was  uncertain.  That  it  was  doomed  to 
vanish  completely,  and  that,  too,  very  soon,  seemed 
assured,  if  indeed  it  had  not  already  vanished.  No 
one  knew  what  the  next  day  or  hour  would  bring 
forth  in  this  maelstrom  of  fermentation,  in  this  con- 
fusion worse  confounded. 

The  curtain  was  rapidly  descending,  the  fifth  act 
of  the  fearful  tragedy  of  our  times  was  closing 
with  unexpected  abruptness.  Bulgaria,  Turkey,  and 
Austria-Hungary  were  out  of  the  war.  There  re- 
mained the  German  Empire.  Deserted  by  her  allies, 
and  herself  being  rapidly  driven  from  France  and  Bel- 
gium, and  with  the  invasion  of  her  own  country  not 
only  probable  but  actually  impending,  what  would 
this  arch-conspirator  of  the  age,  this  "  natural  foe  to 
liberty  "  at  home  and  everywhere,  what  would  she 
do,  what  could  she  do,  in  a  world  so  strangely  altered 
since    Brest- Litovsk,    since    Chateau-Thierry?      The 


412  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

handwriting  on  the  wall  was  becoming  larger  and 
more  legible  and  more  terrifying.  The  evil  days  were 
drawing  nigh  for  a  dread  accounting.  What  could 
the  proud  and  mighty  German  Empire  do? 

What  she  did  was  to  make  a  frantic  effort  for  peace, 
appealing  to  President  Wilson  to  bring  about  a  peace 
conference,  pretending  to  accept  the  various  terms 
he  had  indicated  in  his  speeches  of  the  year  as  a  proper 
basis  for  the  new  age,  reforming  her  government 
rapidly  in  order  to  meet  the  more  obvious  criticisms 
which  foreigners  had  made  against  it  as  autocratic 
and  miHtaristic.  The  outcome  of  these  maneuvers 
was  the  elaboration  by  the  Allies  and  the  United 
States  at  Versailles  of  the  terms  on  which  they  would 
grant  an  armistice.  These  terms  were  to  be  com- 
municated by  Marshal  Foch  to  such  a  delegation  as 
the  German  Government  should  send  to  receive  them 
at  a  place  to  be  indicated  by  the  Generalissimo.  On 
Friday  morning,  November  8,  Marshal  Foch  received 
the  German  armistice  delegation  in  a  railroad  car  at 
Senlis  in  France  and  read  to  them  the  terms  agreed 
upon  for  a  cessation  of  hostilities.  They  were  allowed 
seventy-two  hours  in  which  to  consult  their  superiors 
and  in  which  to  sign  or  reject  the  armistice. 

Meanwhile  revolution  had  begun  in  Germany.  On 
Thursday,  November  7,  mutiny  broke  out  at  Kiel. 
Several  of  the  German  warships  were  seized  by  the 
mutineers  and  the  red  flag  was  hoisted  over  them.  On 
that  and  succeeding  days  similar  movements  occurred 
in  various  cities  and  states,  and  revolutionary  govern- 
ments, local  or  regional,  generally  headed  by  social- 
ists, were  announced  from  various  localities,  with  what 


THE  WORLD  WAR  413 

exactness  we  cannot  tell,  from  Hamburg,  Bremen, 
Tilsit,  Chemnitz,  Stuttgart,  Brunswick,  Bavaria, 
finally  from  Berlin.  Reports  circulated  like  wild-fire 
that  reigning  princes  were  abdicating  or  being  de- 
throned, that  workmen's  and  soldiers'  councils  or 
Soviets  were  being  formed  in  various  centers  and  were 
seizing  power.  Demands  were  being  made  that  the 
Kaiser  abdicate.  There  were  all  the  phenomena  of  a 
breaking  up  of  the  great  deep.  German  society  was 
being  torn  by  alarming  dissensions  the  practical  una- 
nimity of  the  past  four  years  was  pounding  to  pieces 
upon  the  jagged  reefs  of  defeat,  and  defeat  with  dis- 
credit and  dishonor.  An  hour  of  fearful  retribution 
had  struck.  There  was  dismay  and  disarray  in  the 
public  mind,  vacillation  and  poverty  of  counsel  among 
the  military  and  political  leaders  of  the  land.  Moral 
bankruptcy,  as  well  as  material,  stared  the  German 
nation  in  the  face,  that  nation  which  had  been  a  unit 
in  war  as  long  as  war  offered  chances  for  aggrandize- 
ment and  loot.  Socialists,  with  the  exception  of  a  paltry 
few,  had  worked  hand  in  glove  with  militarists  and 
Pan-Germans  and  the  assorted  hosts  of  embattled  ad- 
venturers and  soldiers  of  fortune;  they  had  done  this 
for  four  years,  the  easy  tools  of  autocracy  and  egre- 
gious militarism.  But  now  this  band  of  international 
plunderers  was  falling  apart.  Each  was  seeking 
safety  as  he  might  from  the  fast  approaching  storm. 
On  Saturday,  November  9,  a  wireless  message 
picked  up  by  Paris  and  by  London  announced,  to  the 
stupefaction  of  the  world,  that  the  Emperor  of  Ger- 
many, William  II,  had  abdicated,  and  that  his  son, 
the  Crown  Prince  Frederick  William,  had  renounced 


414  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  EUROPE 

his  rights  to  the  throne,  that  a  sociaHst,  Ebert,  had 
been  made  Chancellor,  and  that  a  German  National 
Assembly  would  be  speedily  elected  by  universal  suf- 
frage and  that  that  Assembly  would  "  settle  finally 
the  future  form  of  government  of  the  German  nation 
and  of  those  peoples  which  might  be  desirous  of  com- 
ing within  the  empire." 

On  the  following  day,  Sunday,  the  world  heard  that 
the  revolution  was  still  spreading,  that  Cologne  cathe- 
dral was  flying  a  red  flag,  that  Hanover,  Oldenberg, 
Magdeburg,  Saxony,  and  other  towns  and  states  were 
seething  with  rebellion. 

On  Monday,  November  ii,  1918,  Americans  awoke 
to  the  screeching  of  whistles  and  the  din  of  bells 
which  signified  that  the  armistice  terms  had  been  ac- 
cepted by  the  German  Government  and  that  "  the 
war  was  over,"  hostilities  to  cease  at  11  o'clock  that 
morning,  Paris  time.  Rushing  for  their  morning 
papers,  they  ascertained  this  further  fact  that  Wil- 
liam II,  Emperor  of  Germany,  who  for  thirty  years 
had  been  the  most  powerful  monarch  in  the  world, 
had  fled  for  refuge  in  an  automobile  to  Holland. 
Thus  the  Last  of  the  Hohenzollerns  made  his  sorry 
exit  from  the  scene,  having  plunged  the  world  into 
turmoil  and  retribution  indescribable,  the  memory  of 
which  would  haunt  mankind  with  nameless  horror 
for  decades  to  come,  the  heartless,  crushing  cost  of 
which  would  afflict  and  sadden  generations  yet  un- 
born. 

The  evil  that  men  do  lives  after  them. 


INDEX 


Abd-el-Kader,  90 

Abdul  Hamid  II,  244,  245,  297, 
302 

Abyssinia,  lOi 

Adana  massacres,  301,  303 

Adowa,  loi 

Adrianople,  302,  309,  310,  313 

yEgean  islands,  104,  306,  310 

Afghanistan,  170 

Africa,  British  expansion  into, 
181;  exploration,  192;  French 
authority,  92;  German  colo- 
nies, 48-49;  German  colonies 
conquered  in  World  War, 
352;  partition,  191,  194;  situa- 
tion in  1815,  192 

Agadir,  95 

Aisne,  Battle  of  the,  335,  385 

Alabama  affair,  134 

Albania,  202,  203,  311,  314-315, 
317  . 

Albanian  rebellion,  304,  306 

Albert,  King  of  Belgium,  33s 

Alexander  I,  of  Serbia,  240-241 

Alexander  II,  of  Russia,  248, 
256,  257;  abolition  of  serfdom, 
249,  251-252 

Alexander  III,  of  Russia,  257, 
260 

Alexander  of  Battenberg,  235 

Alfonso  XII,  221,  222 

Alfonso  XIII,  222,  223 

Algeciras,  95 

Algeria,  93,  192;  French  con- 
quest, 89-90 

Algiers,  90 

Allenby,  General,  389,  407 

Allied  forces  in  World  War,  uni- 
fied command,  359,  396;  see 
also  World  War 

Alsace-Lorraine,  2;  German  en- 
trance, 28;  loss,  31 

Amadeo,  219,  220 


Amiens,  396 

Andorra,  202 

Anglican  Church,  Ireland,  129; 
Wales,  165 

Anglo-Portuguese  Alliance,  361- 
362 

Annam,  91,  92 

Antwerp,  335 

"  Anzacs,"  347 

Arabi  Pasha,  198,  199 

Arabia,  407 

Arbitration,  international,  134; 
New  Zealand,  180;  Permanent 
Court  of  Arbitration,  293, 
294 

Argonne  Forest,  401,  402,  404 

Armaments,  reduction  of,  292, 
293,  295 

Armenian  massacres,  303 

Armies,  American,  in  France, 
398,  400;  British,  133;  Chinese, 
280 ;  European,  290 ;  French, 
69,  80,  82;  Russian,  379-380 

Armored  cars  in  war  (tanks), 
357 

Arras,  384,  385,  396 

Asia,  European  nations  in,  264 

Asquith,  Herbert,  155,  157,  159, 
162;  quoted  on  the  position  of 
the  Allies  in  World  War,  332 ; 
third  Home  Rule  Bill  (1912), 
164 

Associations  Law,  France,  86 

Auckland,  N.  Z.,  179 
Ausgleich.     See  Compromise  of 
1867 

Australia,     174;     Confederation, 

177;  constitution,  178 
Australian  ballot,  133 
Austria,  Bismarck  and,  18;  Ca- 
vour's  opposition  to,  8,  9;  de- 
feat    and      disintegration     in 
1918,     410-411;     France     and 


415 


4i6 


INDEX 


Piedmont  against,  8,  9;  Gari- 
baldi and,  12;  German  support 
in  World  War,  322-323 ;  occu- 
pation of  Italy,  5,  6;  proposed 
action  against  Serbia  in  1913, 
316,  317;  Prussian  war  of  1866, 
24;  races,  no;  reorganization 
after  1866,  106 ;  responsibility 
for  World  War,  322 ;  since 
1867,  III;  territory,  106-107; 
ultimatum  to  Serbia,  July  23, 

1914.  319 

Austria-Hungary,  annexation  of 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  299; 
dualism  and  racial  struggles, 
106,  108-109;  Italy  wars  on, 
105 ;  population  and  races,  109- 
iio;  United  States  declares 
war  on,  374 

Austro-German  Treaty  of  1879, 

51 
Azores,  225 

Bagdad,  389,  407 
Balance  of  power,  25,  203,  325 
Balfour,  A.  J.,  151,  I53 
Balkan    states,    120;    revolts    in 

1875,   230;    rise,   226;    war   on 

Turkey,  308 
Balkan  wars  of   191 2  and   1913, 

290,  307 ;   cost  in  human  life, 

314 

Baltic  Provinces,  382 

Baluchistan,  170 

Bapaume,  357,  396 

Bashi-Bazouks,  231 

Bastille  Day,  76 

Bazaine,  28 

Beaconsfield.    See  Disraeli 

Beatty,  Admiral,  363 

Beirut,  407 

Belgium,  Congo  Free  State  and, 
i95>  196;  German  cruelty  to- 
ward, 336,  366-367 ;  German 
ultimatum  in  1914,  328;  Ger- 
many's attack  in  1914,  3^7 '< 
neutrality,  203,  204;  signifi- 
cance, 205 

Belgrade,  228,  349 

Belleau  Wood,  398 

Berlin,  32 


Berlin,  Congress  of,  50,  233, 
234 

Berlin,  Congress  of,  50,  233, 
240;  breaches,  299,  300 

Berhn  to  Bagdad,  407,  408 

Bernadotte,  213 

BernstorfT,  373 

Bethmann-Hollweg,  328-329,  373 

Bismarck,  "  blood  and  iron " 
policy,  17;  enmity  against 
France,  25-26 ;  great  achieve- 
ment, 37 ;  North  German  Con- 
federation, 22;  position,  38; 
protective  tariflF,  46;  resigna- 
tion, 53 ;  Socialism  and,  41 

Black  Sea,  339,  347,  410 

Blockade,  362,  363 

"  Blood  and  iron,"  17 

"  Bloody  Sunday,"  285 

Boer  War,  152,  186;  Unionists 
and,  156 

Boers,  181,  183,  192 

Bohemia,  107,  no,  iii,  112;  in- 
vasion, 20 

Bolsheviki,  380,  381,  382,  383,  391, 

394 

Bolshevism,  392 

Bonapartists,  70 

Bordeaux,  334 

Bordeaux,  Assembly  of,  65 

Boris,  King,  409 

Bosnia,  120,  234;  annexation  to 
Austria-Hungary,  299 ;  Aus- 
trian rule,  318 

Bosporus,  339,  347,  410 

Botany  Bay,  175,  176 

Boulanger,  78 

Bourbon  family,  71,  219 

Bouresches,  398 

Boxer   movement   of    1900,   274, 

275 
Boy-Ed,  367 
Braga,  Theophile,  224 
Brazil,  224,  375 
Brest-Litovsk,    Treaty    of,    382; 

map,     393 ;     provisions,     392 ; 

revelation    of    German    greed, 

394;   territory   lost   to   Russia, 

392 
British  Empire,  166;  Egypt  and 
the     Soudan,     201 ;     twentieth 


INDEX 


417 


century,    188;    see   also    Great 

Britain 
British  North  America,  170,  I73 
BrogHe,  Duke  of,  75 
Brusiloff,  General,  358,  359>  361, 

375 

Brussels,  333 

Bucharest,  capture,  360 

Bucharest,  Treaty  of,  313,  3H, 
316,  348,  408 

Budapest,  108 

Budget  in  England,  158 

Bukowina,  358 

Bulgaria,  after  1878,  235 ;  atroci- 
ties, 231  ;  attack  on  Greece  and 
Serbia  in  1913,  3I3;  entrance 
into  war  in  1915,  348;  hatred 
of  Serbia,  311,  312;  independ- 
ence, 239 ;  insurrection  in  1876, 
232;  statehood,  232,  233,  234; 
surrender,  408;  United  States 
relations,  374-375 

Billow,  Prince  von,  53,  S6,  63,  64, 

Bundesrath,  22,  33,  62;  member- 
ship and  powers,  34 
Burma,  170 

Cabinet      government,     Canada, 

172;  Germany,  37 
"  Cadets,"  Russia,  286 
Cambodia,  91 
Cambrai,  385,  404 
Cambridge  University,  I33 
Campbell-Bannerman,  Sir  Henry, 

^54  ^       -   .        r  A 

Canada,  170;  Dommion  formed, 

172;  government,  172,  173 
Canadian  Pacific  Railway,  174 
Canadians   in   World   War,   343, 

375,  38s 
Cantigny,  398 
Canton,  China,  266,  267 
Cantons,  Swiss,  206,  207 
Cape  Colony,  181 
Cape  Town,  188 
Carlos  I,  224 
Carlstad,  217 
"  Carmen  Sylva,"  230 
Carnot,  78,  80 
Carso  Plateau,  385 


Carthage,  191  >^ 

Casimir-Perier,  80  y 

Catholic  Emancipation,  127 
Catholics,   conflict  with   govern- 
ment in  Germany,  38;  France, 
75 ;  Ireland,  126 
Cavite,  222 

Cavour,  Camillo  di,  character,  6; 
diplomacy,    8;    Garibaldi    and, 
14;  principles,  15 
Censorship  in  Russia,  261 
Chalons,  398 
Chamber    of    Deputies,    France, 

Chamberlain,  Joseph,  colonies 
and  imperialism,  151  ;  South 
African  policy,  185;  tariff  re- 
form, 154 

Chambord,  Count  of,  70 

Chancellors,  German,  36,  53 

Charles  I,  of  Austria,  120 

Charles  I,  of  Roumania,  230,  239, 
240 

Chateau-Thierry,  398,  400 

Chemin  des  Dames,  385 

China,  265  ;  break  with  Germany, 
375  ;  European  relations,  267  ; 
integrity,  275;  isolation,  266; 
reforms,  280 ;  republican  move- 
ment, 281 ;  treaty  ports,  267 

Chino-Japanese  War  in  1894.  272 

Christiania,  214,  218 

Church  and  State,  France,  85; 
Ireland,  129;  Italy,  97;  Por- 
tugal, 224;  Wales,  165 

Civil  Service  in  Great  Britam, 
133 

Class  legislation  in  England,  i54, 

156,  159 
Clericalism,  75,  86 
Cochin-China,  91 
Colonial  Society,  48 
Colonies,  British,   13S,   I37,   I5i; 

British,     in     North     America, 

170;  British  management,  171; 

Dutch,    205;    French,    77.    89; 

German,  47,  54;  German  loss, 

352;      Italian,      loo-ioi,      104; 

Russian  in  Asia,  264 ;  Spanish, 

223 
Combes,  86 


4iS 


INDEX 


Commerce  of  Great  Britain  and 
India,  135 

Commons,  House  of,  Parliament 
Bill  restricting  Lords,  159,  162 

Commune,  Paris,  66 

Compromise  of  1867  (Austria- 
Huns;ary),    108,    lii,   112 

Concordat  (1801),  87;  abroga- 
tion, 87 

Confederation,  Australian,  177; 
see  also  Federation 

Congo  Colony,  205 

Congo  Free  State,  195,  196 

Congo  River,  194,  195,  196 

Conservative  party,  England, 
146,  147,  149,  153 

Constantine,  King  of  Greece, 
350,  375 

Constantinople,  309,  310,  338 ;  at- 
tempted capture  by  Allies  in 
1915,  346-347;  mutiny  in  1909, 
301 

Convicts  in  Australia,  175-176 

Cook,  Captain,  175 

Corfu,  350 

Corn  Laws,  128 

Cossacks,  382 

Courland,  345 

Crete,  242-243,  299,  304,  310 

Crispi,  loi 

Croatians,  116 

Cromer,  Lord,  199 

Cuba,  221,  222,  375 

Gushing,  Caleb,  267 

Custozza,  21 

Cyprus,  234 

Czar,  247,  256',  375,  378 

Czecho-Slovaks,  410 

Czechs,  III,  113 

Czernin,  391 

Czernowitz,  346,  359 

Dalmatia,  107 
Damascus,  407 
Danish  language,  212 
Dardanelles,  410 
Deak,  Francis,  118 
Delbriick,  Professor,  63 
Delcasse,  Theophile,  93 
Democracy,    Austria,    114;    Ger- 
man effort  of  1848,  17;  Great 


Britain,  121,  139-140;  Italy, 
100;  Prussia,  57,  58;  Sweden, 
218;  Switzerland,  207 

Denmark,  209;  Prussia's  war 
against,  18 

Disraeli,  Benjamin,  134;  policy 
and  achievements,  135,  137 

Dodecanese,  306,  307 

Douaumont,  355 

Dreyfus  case,  80 

Dual  Alliance,  79,  325 

Dual  Control  (of  Egypt),  198, 
199 

Dual  Monarchy,  ^e  Austria- 
Hungary 

Duma,  286,  288,  375,  378 

Dumba,  367 

Durham,  Lord,  171,  172 

East  India  Company,  168 

Eastern  front  of  World  War, 
346,  383  ;  map,  377 

Eastern  Question,  definition,  227 ; 
Disraeli  and,  137;  in  1875,  230; 
in  1878,  233;  in  1908,  243,  297, 
298 ;  international  character, 
323 

Ebert,  414 

Edict  of  Emancipation,  Russia, 
249 

Education,  England,  131-132,  153, 
154;  France,  76;  Italy,  99;  re- 
ligious, in  France,  85  ;  Switzer- 
land, 209 

Edward  VII,  153,  161 

Egypt,  94,  191 ;  annexation  to 
British  Empire,  197,  201 ;  de- 
clared a  protectorate  of  Brit- 
ish Empire  in  1914,  340;  Dual 
Control,  198,  199;  England 
and,  135-136;  finances,  198; 
"  occupation  "  by  England,  194, 
199 

Eidsvold,  Constitution  of,  213, 
215,  216 

Elgin,  Lord,  172 

Emigration,  European,  166;  Ire- 
land, 128;  Italy,  103;  Russian 
Jews,  258 

"Empress  of  India,"  136,  169 

Ena,  Princess,  223 


INDEX 


419 


England.     See   British   Empire; 

Great  Britain 
Entente  Cordiale,  94 
Enver  Pasha,  339 
Eritrea,  loi 

Esperey,  Franchet  d',  408 
Esterhazy,  Major,  81 
Eviction,  130,  131 

Falaba,  369 

Falk  Laws.    See  May  Laws 

Falkenhayn,  General,  360 

Far  East,  England,  France,  and 
Russia  in,  264 

Fashoda  incident,  94 

Faure,  Felix,  80 

Federation,  British  colonies  in 
North  America,  172;  Switzer- 
land, 206 ;  see  also  Imperial 
Federation 

Ferdinand  I,  of  Roumania,  240 

Ferdinand  of  Saxe-Coburg  (Bul- 
garia), 237,  299;  abdication, 
409 

Ferry,  Jules,  76,  77,  78,  91 

Finland,  261-262,  378,  382,  391 

Florer'-e,  96 

Foch,  Marshal,  334,  356;  com- 
mander-in-chief of  Allies,  396; 
counter  offensive,  400,  401, 
402,  404 ;  final  stroke,  404, 
406 ;  German  armistice  terms, 
412 

Formosa,  272,  279 

Forster  Education  Act  of  1870, 
131-132,  153 

France,  apprehension  of  war 
(1866-70),  25;  assistance  for 
Italy  against  Austria,  8,  9; 
Church  and  State,  85 ;  civil 
war  of  1870-71,  65 ;  colonial 
expansion,  89 ;  colonies,  77 ; 
constitution,  framing  in  1875, 
70,  73 ;  devastation  by  the  Ger- 
mans in  World  War,  384; 
Dual  Alliance  in  1892,  79; 
Great  Britain's  relations  in 
1914,  327 ;  invasion  in  1914, 
328,  333 ;  presidency,  72 ;  rec- 
onciliation with  England,  94; 
reconstruction    under    Thiers, 


68-69;  resolution  and  defiance 

in  World  War,  353,  354;  Third 

Republic,  23 ;   Third   Republic, 

fundamental     feature,     73-74 ; 

Third  Republic  proclaimed,  29, 

32 ;   Senate  and  Chamber,  73 ; 

suffrage    and     education,     76; 

under  the  Third  Republic,  65 ; 

with    England    in    Egypt,    i^, 

199 

Franchise.    See  Suffrage 

Francis  II.  of  Naples,  11,  13,  14 

Francis     Ferdinand,     Archduke, 

318, 
Francis    Joseph,    107,    in,    119, 

120,  299 
Franco-Prussian  War,  duration, 
29 ;  French  reverses,  27 ;  inci- 
dental   results,    23 ;    outbreak, 
26,  27;   peace  terms,  31;   spe- 
cific results,  I,  2 
Frankfort,  Diet  of  (1815),  34 
Frankfort,  Treaty  of,  31,  49 
Frederick  III,  52 
Free  trade  in  England,  154 
Freedom  of  speech  in  Germany, 

55 
French,  Sir  John,  343,  344 
Fujiyama,  268 

Galicia,  107,  113,  338,  345,  380 

Gallipoli,  347 

Gambetta,  29,  30,  65,  75,  76,  78, 

86 
Gapon,  Father,  285 
Garibaldi,    Giuseppe,    S ;     story, 

II 
Gas  in  war,  343,  396 
Geneva  Commission,  134 
George  I,  King  of  Greece,  242 
George  V,  161,  162 
Gerard,  Ambassador,  373 
German  Chancellors,  36,  53 
German  Crown  Prince,  354,  356, 

413 
German  East  Africa,  352 
German  Emperor,  power,  37 
German  Empire,   18,  22,  32,  33 ; 
acquisitions    from   China,   273- 
274,    275 ;    acts    which    forced 
the    United    States    into    war. 


420 


INDEX 


366;  attempt  at  democratic 
unity,  16;  attitude  at  outbreak 
of  World  War,  323-324;  brief 
history  since  1871,  38;  Cath- 
olic or  Center  party,  41 ;  Cen- 
tral and  South  American 
states  in  the  World  War,  375; 
colonies,  47,  54;  confederation 
of  loose  states,  16;  constitu- 
tion, 33,  56;  constitution, 
amending,  61-62;  cruelty  to 
Belgium,  336,  366-367  ;  declara- 
tion of  war  against  Russia  in 
1914,  325 ;  effect  of  collapse  of 
Turkey,  317 ;  German  soul  re- 
vealed by  treaty  of  Brest- 
Litovsk,  394;  loss  of  African 
colonies  in  1914-15;  Moroc- 
can crisis,  95 ;  National  As- 
sembly, 414;  naval  power  de- 
stroyed in  1914,  341 ;  navy,  55 ; 
peace  proposed  and  armistice 
in  1918,  412;  plots  in  United 
States,  367,  368;  protective 
tariff,  46;  retribution  in  1918, 
413;  revolution  in  1918,  412; 
states  composing,  35-36;  sub- 
marine policy,  368,  370,  2>7?> ; 
suffrage,  60;  support  for  Aus- 
tria in  World  War,  322-323; 
unification,  32 

German  Southwest  Africa,  352 

Giolitti,  316 

Gladstone,  W.  E.,  122 ;  education 
measure,  132 ;  fall  of  ministry 
in  1886,  146;  fourth  ministry, 
150;  foreign  policy,  138;  Irish 
Government  Bill  and  Land 
Bill  (1886),  143;  Land  Act  of 
(1870),  131-132;  elections  of 
1881,  138;  leadership  and  pol- 
icy, 124 ;  Second  Home  Rule 
Bill  (1893),  149;  South  Afri- 
can policy,  182-183;  third  min- 
istry (1886),  141,  142;  Turk- 
ish expulsion  from  Europe, 
231-232 

Gold,  AustraHa,  176;  South 
Africa,  184 

Golitzin,  376 

Gordon,  General,  200,  201 


Gorizia,  359,  385 

Gorky,  394 

Gortchakoff,  50 

Gouraud,  General,  404 

Government  ownership  in  New 
Zealand,   179 

Gramont,  26 

Great  Britain,  army  conscrip- 
tion, 356 ;  diplomacy  at  out- 
break of  World  War,  2,2^, 
325,  326;  Eastern  Question  in 
1878,  233;  education  (1902), 
153.  1541  education  measure 
(1870),  131-132;  elections  of 
1910,  160,  162 ;  entrance  into 
World  War,  330 ;  financial 
legislation,  163 ;  Imperialism 
and  Disraeli,  134,  137;  Ire- 
land and,  121 ;  opium  war, 
266 ;  possessions  at  close  of 
eighteenth  century,  167;  sea 
power,  364 ;  service  to  Italy, 
10;  suffrage  extension,  121, 
133 ;  United  States  arbitra- 
tion, 134;  see  also  British  Em- 
pire 

Greece,  after  1833,  241 ;  deser- 
tion of  Serbia,  349;  entrance 
into  World  War,  375 ;  German 
influence,  241 ;  independence, 
229 

Grevy,  Jules,  75,  78 

Grey,  Sir  Edward,  300 

Guihight,  369 

Gustavus  V,  218 

Haakon  VII,  218 

Hague  Conferences,  292,  295 

Haig,  General,  356,  357;  historic 
utterance,  396-397;  made  com- 
mander-in-chief of  British 
armies,  344 

Hallam,  Arthur,  123 

Hamilton,  Sir  Ian,  347 

Hapsburg,  House  of,  106,  112, 
120,  411 

Henry,  Colonel,  81 

Henry  V,  71 

Herzegovina,  120,  231,  234;  an- 
nexation to  Austria-Hungary, 
299 


INDEX 


421 


Hindenburg,  338,  344-345,  346, 
356,  375 

"  Hindenburg  Line,"  384  ;  break- 
ing of,  403,  404 

Hohenzollern,  House  of,  23,  26, 
28,  219,  414 

Holland,  205 ;  colonies,  205 

Holstein,  18,  21,  210 

Home  Rule,   141 

Home  Rule  Bill  (second),  149 

Home  Rule  Bill  (third,  1512), 
164 

Hong  Kong,  267 

House  of  Commons,  of  Lords. 
See  Commons ;  Lords 

Hudson  Bay  Company,  173 

Humbert  I,  98,  102 

Hungary,  106;  "historic  rights," 
107;  independence  in  1918, 
411;  races,  115;  since  1867, 
114 

Illiteracy,  Italy,  99;  Spain,  223 

Imperial  Federation,  188 

Imperialism,  European,  166; 
Great  Britain,  134,  151,  152, 
156 

India,  acquisition  by  Great  Brit- 
ain, 168;  commerce  with,  168; 
German  plans  against,  387,  389 ; 
government,  169 ;  importance 
in  British  Empire,  136;  road 
to,  135 

Industry,  Germany,  54;  Italy, 
103;  Russia,  258-259;  Switzer- 
land, 209 

Initiative,  208 

Insurance  of  workingmen,  Bis- 
marck's system,  45 

International  African  Associa- 
tion, 195 

International  law,  295 ;  Ger- 
many's violation  in  1914,  328, 
370,  371 

Ionian  Islands,  242 

Ireland,  121 ;  cause  of  Irish 
question,  125;  emigration,  128; 
eviction  and  agrarian  crimes, 
130,  131;  famine,  127;  Glad- 
stone's policy,  124,  129;  Home 
Rule  party,  142;  Irish  Parlia- 


ment, 143;  Land  Act  of  1870, 
131,  138;  Land  Act  of  1881, 
138;  Land  Act  of  1903,  148; 
land  tenure,  125,  129;  national 
feeling,  141 ;  religious  ques- 
tion, 126,  129 

Isabella  II,  219 

Ismail  Pasha,  197 

Isonzo,  359,  385 

Italia  Irredenta,  104,  351 

Italian  front  in  World  War, 
map,  386 

"  Italian  Legion,"  11 

Italy,  aid  from  British  and 
French  troops  in  1917,  386; 
aspiration  toward  unification, 
4;  campaign  against  Austria 
in  1916,  358;  capitals,  96; 
Church  and  State,  97 ;  colonial 
expansion,  loo-ioi,  104;  con- 
stitution, 96;  education,  99; 
emigration,  103;  Entente  Al- 
lies, 105 ;  finances,  98 ;  in  al- 
liance with  Prussia  against 
Austria,  19,  21 ;  industry,  103 ; 
intervention  in  World  War, 
351;  kingdom  proclaimed,  15; 
making  of,  6;  neutrality  in 
World  War,  321,  331 ;  oflfen- 
sive  in  1918,  409;  prosperity, 
102;  refusal  to  support  Aus- 
tria in  1913  against  Serbia, 
316;  reverses  in  war  in  1916 
and  1917,  385,  387;  since  1870, 
96;  sketch  of  the  rise  of  mod- 
ern, 3  ;  suffrage,  99-100 ;  Triple 
Alliance,  51,  100,  104,  105; 
Tripoli  project,  305,  306,  307: 
unitj%  9;  unity  consummated, 
32 

Jaffa,  389 

Jagow,  329 

Jameson  Raid,  185 

Janina,  309,  310 

Japan,  267 ;  alliance  with  Eng- 
land in  1902,  276;  constitu- 
tion, education,  etc.,  271 ; 
dominance  in  the  Orient,  279- 
280;  entrance  into  World 
War,  340;  European  interven- 


422 


INDEX 


tion,  273;  evolution,  270;  Rus- 
sian menace,  276;  seclusion, 
268-269 ;  war  with  China  in 
1894,    272;    war    with    Russia, 

Jaroslav,  338 

Jellicoe,  Admiral,  363 

Jerusalem,  390,  407 

Jews,    France,   84;    Russia,   258, 

378 
Joflfre,    General,    famous    order, 

334 
Johannesburg,   184 
Jutland,  Battle  of,  362 

Kaiser.     See  William  II 

Kaledin,  General,  382 

Kamerun,  352 

Kara  George,  228 

Kemmel,  Mt.,  397 

Kerensky,    378,    379,    380,    381, 

391 
Khartoum,  200,  201 
Khedive,   197.   198,   I99,  201,  339 
Kiauchau,  273,  340,  341,  352 
Kiel,    363,    364;    naval    mutiny, 

412 
Kiel,  Treaty  of,  209,  215 
Kiel  Canal,  341 
Kirk  Kilisse,  309 
Kitchener,  Lord,  Boer  War,  186; 

Soudan,  152,  201 
Koniggratz.    See  Sadowa 
Korea,  272,  276 
Kossuth,  Francis,  118 
Kiihimann,  391 
Kulturkampf,  38 
Kumanovo,  308 
Kuropatkin,  General,  278 
Kut-el-Amara,  389 

Labor  legislation  in  New  Zea- 
land, 180 

Labor  party  in  England,  157 

Land,  Ireland,  125,  129,  148; 
Russia,  249,  250,  251 

Land  Act  of  1870,  Ireland,  131, 
138 

Land  Act  of  1881,  Ireland,  138 

Land  Act  of  1903,  Ireland,  148 

Laon,  406 


Lassalle,  Ferdinand,  41,  43 

Lausanne  (Ouchy),  Treaty  of, 
306,  308 

Legitimists,  70 

Lemberg,  338,  345 

Lenine,  381 

Leo  XIII.  98 

Leopold  II,  195,  196 

Li  Yuan-hung,  282 

Liao-tung  peninsula,  272,  273, 
278 

Liao-yang.  278 

Liberal  party.  Great  Britain, 
122 ;  disruption,  146 ;  Glad- 
stone's leadership,  124;  Home 
Rulers  and,  142;  House  of 
Lords  and,  159;  radicalism, 
156-157;  restoration  in  1880, 
137;  return  to  power  in  1892, 
149;  in  1905,  154 

Liberal-Unionists,  146 

Liberalism  in  Germany,  63 

Liberia,  375 

Liechtenstein,  202 

Liege,  333 

Liggett,  General,  404 

Lisbon,  224 

Lissa,  21 

Lithuania,  345,  382 

Livingstone,  David,  193 

Lloyd  George,  David,  155 ;  ap- 
peal for  American  soldiers, 
400 ;  budget  and  taxes  in 
1909,  158 

Lombardy,  5,  9 

London,  Treaty  of,  310 

Lords,  House  of,  attack  upon, 
150;  budget  opposition,  157, 
158 

"  Lords'  Veto,"   161 

Loubet,  fimile,  80,  82 

Ludendorff,  General,  398 

Lule  Burgas,  309 

Lusitania,  sinking  of,  353,  369, 
370,  371 

Lutsk,  359 

Luxemburg,  203,  204,  327,  329 

Lvoff,  Prince,  378 

Macedonia,  233,  234,  239,  243, 
304,  307,  312 


INDEX 


423 


Mackensen,  345,  346,  349 
MacMahon,  Marshal,  70,  72,  74- 

75 

Madagascar,  92 

Madeira,  225 

Maeterlinck,  Maurice,  336 

Magenta,  9 

Magyar  language,  116,  119 

Magyars,  112,  115,  117 

Mahdi,  200,  201 

Mahratta  confederacy,  168 

Majuba  Hill,  183,  184,  186 

Manchu  dynasty,  281 

Manchuria,  272,  275,  277,  279 

Manuel,  224 

Maria  Christina,  222 

Marne  River,  398;  First  Battle 
of,  334,  335 ;  Second  Battle  of, 
400-401 

Marx,  Karl,  41 

Massawa,  loi 

Maude,  General,  389 

May  Laws,  39-40 

Mazurian  Lakes,  345 

Mazzini,  Joseph,  3,  4. 

Mehemet  Ali,  197 

Melikoff,  Loris,  256,  257 

Mesopotamia,  389,  407 

Messines  Ridge,  397 

Metz,  28,  29,  30 

Meuse  River,  406 

Mexico,  German  proposal  of  al- 
liance with  Japan  against  the 
United  States,  374 

Middle  Europe,  361,  387,  408; 
map,  388 

Milan,  capture,  9 

Milan,  King,  240 

Militarism,   64,   290;    France,   69 

Milyukoff,  Paul,  261,  378,  379 

Ministerial  responsibility,  Can- 
ada, 172;  France,  73-74;  Ger- 
many, 60-61 ;  Russia,  287 

Mir,  247,  250-251 

Misitch,  General,  349 

Modena,  9,  10 

Mohammed  V,  302 

Moldavia,  229 

Moltke,  General  von,  20 

Mommsen,  64 

Monarchists,  France,  65,  69,  71 


Monastir,  309 

Monks  and  nuns  in  France, 
85 

Mons,  333 

Montdidier,   396,  398 

Montenegro,  232;  entrance  into 
World  War,  338;  independ- 
ence, 233,  234;  overrunning 
of,  350 

Morley,  John,  143 

Morocco,  crisis,  95 ;  France  and, 
93 

Moscow,  376 

Mukden,  278 

Namur,  333 

Nanking,  treaty,  1842,  266 

Naples,  Kingdom  of,  11,  13 

Napoleon  I,  210 

Napoleon  III,  personality,  23, 
24 ;  popular  estimation,  25 ; 
support  for  Cavour,  8,  9,  10; 
support  for  the  Pope,  14 

National  Assembly,  France,  65 ; 
Germany,  414 

Nationality,  effect  of  the  prin- 
ciple in  Austria,  no;  Ireland, 
141 ;  South  African  Union, 
188 

Navarino,  229 

Navies,  American,  400;  British, 
I49>  3(i2 ;  European,  291 ;  Ger- 
man,  55,  362 

Netherlands.     See  Holland 

Neuilly  Wood,  398 

Neutralized  states,  203,  204,  327 

Neuve  Chapelle,  343 

New  Holland,  175 

New  South  Wales,  175,  178 

New  Zealand,  175,  178;  democ- 
racy, 178-179;  government 
ownership  and  social  legisla- 
tion, 179 

Newfoundland,  170,  173 

Nicholas  II,  of  Russia,  260;  ab- 
dication, 378;  Duma,  286; 
Hague  Conferences,  292,  295 

Nicholas,  Grand  Duke,  346 

Nihilism,  254 

Nikolsburg,  Peace  of,  19 

Nile,   191 ;  sources,   193 


424 


INDEX 


Nippon,  268 

Nivelle,  General,  355 

"  No  annexations,  no  indemni- 
ties," 380,  391.  394 

Nogi,  General,  278 

Norway,  separation  from  Swe- 
den, 217;  suffrage,  218;  Swe- 
den and,  210,  213 

North  America,  British  posses- 
sions, 170,  173 

North  German  Confederation, 
22 

Noyon,  384,  396,  398 

Obrenovitch,  Milosch,  228 

O'Connell,  Daniel,   127 

Oku,  General,  278 

Old  Age  Pensions  Act,  155 

Old  Catholics,  39 

Omdurman,  201 

Opium  War,  266 

Orange  Free  State,  182,  186,  187 

Orange  River  Colony,  187 

Oregon  dispute,  173 

Orleanists,  70 

Oscar  II,  215,  218 

Ostend,  335,  406 

Otto,  King  of  Greece,  229,  241, 

242 
Ouchy.    See  Lausanne 
Oudh,   169 
Oxford  University,  133 

Palestine,  389-407 

Palmerston,  Lord,  10 

Panama,  375 

Pan-Germanism,  205 

Papacy.    Sec  Popes 

Papal  Guarantees,  97 

Papen,  367 

Paris,  dangerous  situation  in 
1918,  399,  400;  long-range 
bombardment,  396;  republican- 
ism, 66 ;  revolution  and  insur- 
rection (1871),  67;  siege 
(1870),  29,  30,  31 

Paris,  Count  of,  70 

Parliament,  British,  duration, 
163;  Irish  exclusion,  143,  144; 
Irish  representation,  126 


Parliament  Act  (191O.  162, 
163 

Parliamentary  government,  61 ; 
Cavour  and,  15;  France,  Third 
Republic,  74 ;  Lords  and  Com- 
mons, England,  160;  Pied- 
mont, 7;  Prussia,  38 

Parma,  10 

Parnell,  C.  S.,  142 

Passchendaele   Ridge,  385 

Patriotism  in  Japan,  268 

Peace,  movement  toward,  in 
1898,  290 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  124 

Peers,  creation  of  new,  162 

Peking,  266,  272,  273,  274 

Pensions,  old  age,  England,  155; 
New  Zealand,  180 

Permanent  Court  of  Arbitra- 
tion, 293,  294 

Peronne,  357,  396 

Perry,  Commodore,  269,  270 

Pershing,  General,  396 

Pescadores  Islands,  272 

Petain,  General,  355 

Peter  I,  of  Serbia,  241 

Petrograd,  376,  379,  380,  392; 
see  also  St.  Petersburg 

Philippine  Islands,  222 

Piave  River,  385 

Picquart,  Colonel,  81,  83 

Piedmont,  7,  10 

Piracy,  90 

Pius  IX,  98 

Pius  X,  87-88 

Plehve,  283,  284 

Plevna,  232,  239 

Plutocracy  in  Prussia,  58,  59 

Poland,  378,  382;   conquered  in 
'^I9I5>      345;      insurrection     in 
1881,  252  > 

Poles  in  Galicia,  113 

Popes,  end  of  temporal  rule,  32; 
political  status,  96-97 

Port  Arthur,  272,  273,  274,  277, 
278,  279,  285 ;  acquisition  by 
Russia,  275 

Porto  Rico,  220,  222 

Portsmouth,  Treaty  of,  279 

Portugal,  223;  claims  in  Africa, 
195 ;     entrance     into     World 


INDEX 


425 


War,  361 ;  Republic  pro- 
claimed, 224 

Prague,   in,   113 

Prague,  Peace  of,  19 

Pretoria,   188 

Pripet  Marshes,  358,  359 

Property,  qualification  for  fran- 
chise in  England,  140;  rights, 
157,  159 

Protective  tariff,  England,  154; 
Germany,  46 

Prussia,  annexations,  21  ;  army, 
9;  Austrian  war  of  1866,  24, 
32;  Bismarck's  policy  for,  17; 
despotism  toward  Denmark, 
210;  governing  classes,  56,  57; 
king's  power,  37,  62 ;  mili- 
tarism, 290 

Prussia,  East,  345 

Przemysl,  338,  345 

Punjab,  169 

Races  in  Austria,  no 

Radoslavoff,  348 

Railways,  Japan,  271  ;  New  Zea- 
land, 179;  Russia,  259 

Rand,   184 

Referendum,  208 

Reform  Bill  of  1867,  122, 
123 

Reform  Bills  of  1884-85,  138, 
140 

Reichstag,  22 ;  character,  62- 
63 ;  popular  representation, 
60;  powers,  35 

Religious  intolerance  in  Ireland, 
126 

Religious      orders      in      France, 

85 

Religious  tests  in  English  uni- 
versities, 133 

Rennes  tribunal,  81 

Representative  government.  See 
Parliamentary  government 

Republicanism,  France,  66,  yz, 
74;  small  states  of  Europe, 
202 ;   Spain,  220,  221 

Rheims,  387,  398,  402 

Rhodes,  Cecil,  185 

Rhodesia,  188 

Riga,  346,  380 


Roberts,  Lord,  186 

Rodjestvensky,  Admiral,  278 

Roman  Catholics.  See  Catho- 
lics 

Romanoffs,  248,  378 

Rome,  15;  capital  of  kingdom 
of  Italy,  32,  96;  Garibaldi's 
attempt  against,  14 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  279,  295, 
365 

Roumania,  229;  after  1878,  239; 
conquest,  360 ;  entrance  on 
World  War,  359 ;  independ- 
ence, 233,  234;  peace  treaty, 
391.  394  J  war  with  Bulgaria 
in  1913,  313 

Roumanians,  115,  il8 

Roumelia,  Eastern,  236 

Russia,  agitation  after  the  Jap- 
anese war,  284,  285 ;  Asiatic 
power  and  policies,  264,  265 ; 
censorship,  261 ;  Congress  of 
Berlin,  50;  Constituent  As- 
sembly, 383 ;  disintegration, 
346,  353,  365,  375;  Dual  Alli- 
ance in  1892,  79 ;  early  vic- 
tories in  World  War,  336, 
338 ;  entrance  into  Far  East- 
ern politics,  2yz ;  extent  and 
races,  246;  German  campaign 
against,  in  1915,  344;  indus- 
trial development,  258-259 ;  in- 
fluence in  Bulgaria,  235 ;  Jews, 
258,  378;  land,  249,  250,  251; 
mobilization  in  1914,  322,  324; 
Nihilism  and  Socialism,  254; 
Polish  insurrection,  252 ;  posi- 
tion at  opening  events  of 
World  War,  322 ;  Provisional 
Government,  378,  379 ;  recent 
history,  283 ;  Revolution,  375^ 
376,  378,  382 ;  serfdom,  248, 
249,  251-252;  Socialist  propa- 
ganda, 379,  380;  war  on  Tur- 
key in  1877,  232;  see  also 
Brest-Litovsk 

Russification,  253,  262 

Russo-Japanese  War,  276 

Sadowa  (Koniggratz),  20;  "Re- 
venge for,"  25 


426 


INDEX 


Saghalin,  279 

St.  Mihiel  salient,  403 

St.  Petersburg,  256,  285 ;  sec  also 

Petrograd 
St.  Quentin,  404 
Salisbury,    Lord,    141,    147,    149, 

150,   151 
Salonica,  302,  308,  350 
Samaria,  407 
San   Marino,  202,  352 
San  Stefano,  Treaty  of,  50.  232, 

233 

Sanders,  Linian  von,  347 

Santiago,  222 

Sarajevo,  318 

Savoy,    House    of,    23 ;    leader- 
ship    in     Italian     unification, 

7.  9. 

Scandinavian  states,  209 

Scheer,  Admiral  von,  363 

Schleswig,   18,  21,  210 

Scutari,  309,  310 

Sea  power,  189,  364 

Sedan,   28,  32 

Senegal,  89,  90,  92 

Senlis,  412 

Sepoy  Mutiny,  169 

Septennate,  72 

Serbia,    after    1878,    239;    Aus- 
tria's proposed  action  in  1913, 

316,  317;  exclusion  from 
Adriatic,  311;  grievance,  300; 
independence,  233,  234;  prep- 
aration for  war  in  1914,  321, 
322 ;  protest  to  the  Powers  in 
1908,  299;  reconquest  in  1918, 
408;    relations    with    Austria, 

317,  318;  rise,  228;  success 
and  defense  in  World  War, 
348-349,  350;  ultimatum  from 
Austria,  July  23,  1914,  319 

Serbs,  115.  116,  118 
Serfdom,  248,  249,  251-252 
Sergius,  Grand  Duke,  285 
Seven  Weeks*  War,  19,  21 
Shantung,  273,  274 
Shimonoseki,  Treaty  of,  2)^2 
Shipping,     sinking     of     neutral, 

369,  370 
Siam,  375 
Siberia,  264,  378,  382 


Sicily,  99,  103;  revolt  and  Gari- 
baldi,  II,   13 

Slavs,  evolution,  113;  Hungary, 
112;  Russia's  interest,  322 

Slovaks,   115 

Smuts,  General,  352 

Social  Democrats,  45,  55 

Social  legislation,  England,  148, 
157;  New  Zealand,  179 

Socialists,  Austria,  114;  Bis- 
marck and,  41  ;  growth  of 
party  in  Germany,  42 ;  perse- 
cution in  Germany,  43,  44; 
Russia,  254 ;  Russian  Revolu- 
tion, 379,  380;  secret  propa- 
ganda,   44;    William    H    and, 

54 
Sofia,  238,  239 
Soissons,  398 
Solferino,  9 
Solovief,  256 
Somaliland,  lOi 
Somme,  Battle  of  the,  356,  357, 

383 
Soudan,  92 ;   England   and,   200, 

201  ;  Kitchener's  recovery,  152 
South    Africa,    Boer   War,    152; 

British  in,   181 
South    African    Republic.      See 

Transvaal 
South  African  Union,  187 
Soviets,  379,  381 ;  Germany,  413 
Spain,    218;     constitution,    221; 

Hohenzollern  candidacy,  26,  28 ; 

presidents,     221  ;     republicans, 

220,  221 
Stambuloflf,       personality       and 

work,  237,  238 
Stanley,  H.  M.,  193,  194 
State.    Sec  Church  and  State 
State  Socialism,  45 
Stockholm,  214 
Storthing,  213,  214,  216,  218 
Strasburg,  surrender    (1870),  30 
Stiirmer,  376 
Submarines,    341,    363,    368,    370, 

373 

Suez  Canal,  197;  Disraeli's  pur- 
chase, 135,  198;  Turkish  at- 
tacks, 340 

Suffrage,  Austria,  114;  Austria- 


INDEX 


4^7 


Hungary,  109;  France,  76; 
Great  Britain,  121,  133,  138- 
140;  Italy,  99-100;  Norway 
and  Sweden,  218;  Prussia,  57, 
58;  Spain,  223;  see  also 
Woman  Suffrage 

Sultan,  Egypt  and,  197;  see  also 
Turkish  Empire 

Sun  Yat  Sen,  Dr.,  281 

Suvla  Bay,  347 

Sussex,  372 

Sweden,  democracy,  218;  Nor- 
way and,  213,  217 

Switzerland,  neutrality,  203,  204, 
327;  significance,  206 

Sydney,  176 

Syria,  407 

Taaffe  ministry,  112,  113,  114 

Tagliamento  River,  385 

"  Tanks,".  357 

Tannenberg,  338,  345 

Tariff.    Sec  Protective  tariff 

Tarnopol,  338 

Tasman,    175 

Taxation  in  England  (1909), 
158 

Tewfik  Pasha,  198 

Thessaly,  241,  242,  243 

Thiers,  66;  reconstruction,  68-69 

Tigris  River,  387,  389 

Togo,  Admiral,  279 

Togoland,  352 

Tonkin,  92 

Torchy,  398 

Townshend,  General,  389 

Trans-Siberian  railroad,  259,  277 

Transvaal  (South  African  Re- 
public), 182,  184,  187 

Transvaal  Colony,  187 

Trentino,  104 

Tricolor,  71 

Triple  Alliance,  300,  316,  325, 
351;  formation,  49;  Italy  and, 
100,  104,  105 

Triple  Entente,  325,  326 

Tripoli,  93,  104;  Italy  and,  305, 
306,  307 

Trotzky,  381,  391 

Tunis,  51,  100,  194;  French  con- 
trol, 91,  93 


Turin,  10,  15,  96 

Turkification,  303 

Turkish  Empire,  attempts  against 
Egypt  in  1914,  340;  British 
victories  in  1917  and  1918,  387, 
389,  407 ;  collapse  in  Europe, 
296,  309;  conquered  races, 
227;  disruption,  226,  307;  ef- 
fect of  collapse  on  Germany, 
317;  Egypt  and,  197,  199;  en- 
trance into  World  War,  338, 
339;  extent  in  1815,  226;  Ger- 
man influence,  339;  Parlia- 
ment, 301  ;  revolution  of  the 
Young  Turks  in  1908,  243-244, 
298;  surrender,  410;  United 
States  relations,  374-375;  see 
also  Young  Turks 

Turko-Italian  War  of  191 1,  305 

Tuscany,  9,  10 

Tyrol,  358 

Udine,  385 

Uitlanders,  184,  185 

Ukraine,  382,  391 

Ulster,  164,  165 

Unionist  Coalition,  146 

Unionist  party,  150;  disruption 
(1905),   154;   Imperialism,   156 

United  States,  arbitration  with 
England,  134;  entrance  into 
the  World  War,  365,  ^73,  374; 
how  forced  into  war  by  Ger- 
many, 366;  Japanese  rela- 
tions, 269,  270;  Spanish  War, 
222 

Vatican,  97,  98,  99 

Vaux,  355 

Venetia,  5,  9,  15,  19,  21,  96,  385 

Venice,  387 

Venizelos,  350 

Verdun,  354,  402 

Versailles,  Assembly.  66;  As- 
sembly removed,  76 ;  German 
armistice  of  1918,  412 

Vesle  River,  401 

Veto  Act.     See  Parliament  Act 

Victor  Emmanuel,  10,  97 

Victor  Emmanuel  II,  15,  98 

Victor  Emmanuel  III,  102 


i^'- 


428 


INDEX 


Victoria  (colony),  176,  181 
Victoria,  Queen,  death,  152;  dia- 
mond   jubilee,    151-152;    Em- 
press of  India,  136,  169 
Vienna,  108,  318,  320,  411 
Villafranca,  Peace  of,  9,  10 
Vimy  Ridge,  385 
Vladivostok,  265,  2"]"] 

Waldeck-Rousseau,  85,  86 

Wales,  disestablishment,  165 

Wallachia,  229 

War,  conduct  of,  295 ;  costs, 
291;  see  also  Armaments; 
World  War 

"  War  zone,"  368,  369,  373 

Warsaw,  345 

Wealth.    See  Plutocracy 

Wellington,  N.  Z.,   179 

Western  front  of  World  War, 
map  for  1914-15,  337;  map  for 
191 8,  405 

Weyler,  General,  222 

William  I,  17,  18,  32,  38 

William  II,  18,  38;  abdication 
and  flight,  413,  414;  indiscre- 
tions, 60-61 ;  personality,  53 ; 
quoted  in  1917  and  1918  on 
the  war,  390,  395;  reign, 
52 

William  of  Wied,  315 


Wilson,  President,  correspond- 
ence with  Germany,  368,  371, 
372 

Witte,  Sergius  de,  259 

Woman  suffrage,  England,  122, 
141;  New  Zealand,  180;  Nor- 
way, 218 

Wood,  General  Leonard,  365 

Workingmen's  and  Soldiers' 
Councils.    See  Soviets 

World  War,  316;  cause,  318; 
events  in  1914,  331  ;  in  1915, 
342;  in  1916,  353;  in  191 7,  383; 
in  1918,  395;  nations  and  in- 
terests involved,  331,  332,  342; 
responsibility,  330,  331 

Wytschaete  Ridge,  397 

"  Young  Ireland,"  127 

"  Young  Italy,"  4,  5 

"  Young  Turks,"  243-244,  297, 
298;  difficulties,  301,  305;  gov- 
ernment, 302,  303,  305 

Ypres,  343.  397,  402 

Yser  River,  335 

Yuan   Shih  K'ai,  281,  282 

Zimmermann,  373,  374 
Zola,  fimile,  81.  83 
Zurich,  209 


BY     CHARLES     DOWNER     HAZEN 

Professor  of  History,   Columbia  University 

EUROPE  SINCE  1815 

Octavo,  with  14  colored  maps.  Library  edition.  $4.00 
net. 

The  author  starts  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  and 
comes  down  to  and  explains  the  situation  out  of  which 
the  present  war  has  developed.  The  style  is  fresh  and 
attractive,  the  matter  authoritative,  the  scope  widely 
inclusive. 

"Has  easily  the  field  in  English.  For  the  last  twenty-five 
years  it  is  almost  without  a  competitor.  Should  be  on  every 
book-shelf  for  reading  or  reference."— //ari;ard  Graduates' 
Magazine. 

ALSACE-LORRAINE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

12mo.     3rd  printing.     $1.30  w/. 

Belgium  has  suffered  under  our  own  eyes,  but  the 
earlier  fate  of  Alsace-Lorraine  lies  in  a  period  of 
European  history  which  is  hazy  to  most  Americans. 
This  book  provides  a  brief  and  reliable  account  of  the 
matter.  It  gives  the  facts  upon  which  opinion  may 
safely  rest. 

"  By  far  the  best  short,  yet  actually  suflficient,  presentment 
of  a  question  that  is  at  the  very  heart  of  the  present  struggle." 
—Boston  Transcript.  ,  .     ^  ,  .      ,   ,  •  t-i 

"The  first  volume  of  note  in  this  field  of  history,  the 
author's  'magic  of  style'  makes  his  books  the  most  widely 
circulated  of  any  American  historian's  writings,  and  their 
great  popularity  is  based  as  much  on  their  accuracy  and  fair- 
ness as  on  their  readability."— Fw^^/i.y/i^'-.y'  Weekly. 


HENRY      HOLT     AND      COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS  NEW  YORK 


BOOKS   FOR  THESE  TIMES 

THE  PEOPLE'S  PART  IN   PEACE 

ByORDWAY  TEAD 

The  economic  basis  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  the 
question  of  how  labor  is  to  be  represented.     ($1.10  net.) 

PROPOSED  ROADS  TO  FREEDOM  : 

SOCIALISM.  ANARCHISM  AND  SYNDICALISM 

By,  BERTRAND  RUSSELL,   author  of  Why  Men  Fight" 

The  London  Times:  "A  remarkable  book  by  a  remark- 
able man."     ($1.50  net.) 

THE  SIX  HOUR  DAY: 

AND  OTHER  INDUSTRIAL  QUESTIONS 

By  LORD  LEVERHULME 

London  Christian  World:  "Here  is  the  one  clear  voice 
from  the  side  of  enlightened  capitalism  heard  above  the 
babel  of  reconstructive  chatter."     ($3.50  net.) 

THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS: 

THE  WAY  TO  THE  WORLDS  PEACE 

By   M.    ERZBERGER,    Member   of  the   Reichstag.    Translated  by 
Bernard  Miall. 

A  German  view  of  the  League  of  Nations  as  presented  by 
one  of  Germany's  radical  leaders.  ($2.25  net.) 

THE  PEACE-PRESIDENT: 

A  BRIEF  APPRECIATION  OF  WOODROW  WILSON 

By  WILLIAM  ARCHER 

The  New  York  Sun:  "Will  reap  the  reward  of  time- 
liness, but  deserves  .  .  .  reward  of  attention  for  its  own 
merit."     ($L00  net.) 


HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 
PUBLISHERS  NEW  YORK 


BY       WALTER       LIPPMANN 

DRIFT  AND  MASTERY 

$1.50  Net 

Theodore  Roosevelt  in  The  Outlook: 

"No  man  who  wishes  seriously  to  study  our  present 
social,  industrial  and  political  life  can  afford  not  to  read 
it  through  and  through  and  to  ponder  and  digest  it." 

William  Marion  Reedy  in  The  St.  Louis  Mirror: 

"When  'A  Preface  to  Politics'  was  published,  I  ven- 
tured the  opinion  that  it  was  the  best  book  on  politics  since 
Walter  Bagehot's  'Physics  and  Politics.'  Now  he  has  fol- 
lowed it  with  'Drift  and  Mastery,'  an  even  more  brilliant 
performance." 

A  PREFACE  TO  POLITICS 

SJ.50  Net 

The  Boston  Transcript: 

"  In  many  respects  it  is  the  ablest  brief  book  of  its 
kind  published  during  the  last  ten  years." 

THE  STAKES  OF  DIPLOMACY 

$1.40  Net 

J.  B.  Kerfoot  in  Life:  i 

"  Deals  with  human  nature  involved  in  international 
human  relations  impersonally,  yet  brings  significances  per- 
sonally home  to  us.  A  book  that  widens  horizons  and 
quickens  consciousness." 

THE  POLITICAL  SCENE 
An  essay  on  the  victory  of  191 8.     $1.00  Net 

HENRY     HOLT     AND     COMPANY 

Publishers  New  York 


MAKERS    OF    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY 

Biographies  of  men  of  all  countries  who  have  had  a  definite  influence 
on  thought  or  action  in  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

Edited  b})  BASIL  WILLIAMS,  author  of "  The  Life  of  William 
Pitt. ' '  Octavo,  with  frontispiece,  each  volume  sold  separolelu, 
$2.25  net. 

DELANE  OF  "THE  TIMES" 

By  SIR   EDWARD   COOK 

"  In  its  human  interest  and  its  rapid  power  of  character  delineation 
the  book  may  be  compared  to  Thayer's  '  The  Life  of  John  Hay.' " — The 

Literary  Digest. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

By  LORD   CHARNWOOD 

"  Bound  to  take  a  first  rank  in  the  literature  of  Lincoln,  and  in  many 
respects  may  be  pronounced  the  best  of  the  biographies  yet  produced."— 
The  Nation. 

PORFIRIO  DIAZ 
By  DAVID  H ANN  AY 

"A  volume  of  singular  charm  and  of  unrivaled  value  as  an  authentic 
history  of  Diaz  and  the  Mexico  of  his  day." — The  New  York  Tribune. 

HERBERT  SPENCER 
By  HUGH  ELLIOT 

"Rarely,  if  ever,  has  the  man  and  his  work  been  set  forth  so  com- 
pactly and  so  lucidly  as  in  Mr.  Elliot's  biographical  sludy."— The  Boston 
I  ranscrtpt. 

ABDUL  HAMID 

By    SIR    EDWIN   PEARS,  author  of  "Forty  Years  in  Constantino- 
ple, ' '  former  President  of  the  European  Bar  in  Constantinople. 
"  An   intimate   study   and   searching  analysis   of  the  Turkish   question 
in  its  various  ramifications." — Boston  Transcrpt. 

LI   HUNG  CHANG 
By  J.   O.    P.    BLAND 

"  Discloses    most    instructively    the    complex    character    of    the    great 
Chinese;  his  strength  and  his  weakness." — The  Argonaut. 

BISMARCK 

By  C.    GRANT  ROBERTSON 

Of  especial  interest  now,  when  the  world  is  vriewing  the  wreck  of  the 
t,mpire  Bismarck  built.  The  book  contains  much  new  material,  including 
the  authentic  text  of  the  famous  Ems  dispatch. 


HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 
PUBLISHERS  NEW  YORK 


HISTORY  BOOKS  IN  THE  HOME  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

Absolute!  V  new  books,  not  reprints.    "  Excellent  books,  on  topics  of  real 
interest  by  men  of  world-wide  reputation.— Z-z^erary  Digest. 

of    English    History,    Univer- 
sity   of   London. 
THE    IRISH    NATIONALITY 

By  Alice  Stopford  Green. 
CANADA 

By  A.   G.    Bradley,   author   of 
Canada  in  the  Twentieth  Cen- 
tury. 
THE  RENAISSANCE 

By    Edith    Sichel,    puthor   of 
Catherine  De  Medici. 
A    HISTORY    OF    FREEDOM 
OF   THOUGHT 
By  John  B.  Bury,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor    of     Modern     History, 
Cambridge. 
THE       FRENCH      REVOLU- 
TION 
By   HiLAiRE  Belloc. 
A      SHORT      HISTORY      OF 
WAR   AND    PEACE 
By    G.    H.    Perris,    author    of 
Russia  in  Revolution,  etc. 
HISTORY     OF     OUR     TIME 
(1885-1911) 
By  G.   P.   GoocH.     A  "moving 
picture"   of  the  times. 
THE     PAPACY     AND     MOD- 
ERN   TIMES 
By  Rev.  William  Barry,  D.D. 
POLAR    EXPLORATION 

By  Dr.   W.   S.   Bruce,   Leader 
of  the  "Scotia"   expedition. 
THE       OPENING  -  UP       O  F 
AFRICA 
By  Sir  H.  H.  Johnston. 
THE      CIVILIZATION      O  F 
CHINA 
By  H.  A.   Giles,  Professor  of 
Chinese,  Cambridge. 
PEOPLES    AND    PROBLEMS 
OF   INDIA 
By  Sir  T.  W.  Holderness. 
MODERN  GEOGRAPHY 

By  Dr.   Marion   Newbigim. 
MASTER  MARINERS 

By  John  R.  Spears,  author  of 
The  History  of  Our  Navy. 
THE     OCEAN.        A     General 
Account  of  the  Science 
of  the  Sea 
By  Sir  John   Murray. 

^7  f^  net.  pel 


American  History 

THE      COLONIAL      PERIOD 

(1607-1766) 

By      Charles      McLean      An- 
drews,  Professor   of  American 
History,  Yale. 
THE        WARS         BETWEEN 
ENGLAND  AND 

AMERICA  (1763-1815) 
By  Theodore  C.  Smith,  Pro- 
fessor   of    American    History, 

Williams  College.  

FROM  JEFFERSON  TO  LIN- 
COLN    (1815-1860) 
By  William  MacDonald,  Pro- 
fessor of  History,  Brown  Uni- 
vcrsity. 
THE      CIVIL      WAR      (1854- 
1865) 
By  Frederic   L.    Paxson,   Pro- 
fessor   of    American    History, 
University  of  Wisconsin. 
RECONSTRUCTION         AND 
UNION   (1865-1913) 
By  Paul  Leland  Haworth. 

General  History 

LATIN   AMERICA 

By  William  R.  Shepherd, 
Professor  of  History,  Colum- 
bia. 

GERMANY   OF   TO-DAY 
By  Charles  Tower. 

NAPOLEON 

By  H.  A.  L.  Fisher,  Vtce- 
Chancellor  of  Sheffield  Uni- 
versity, author  of  The  Re- 
publican  Tradition   in   Europe. 

THE  DAWN  OF  HISTORY 
By  J.  L.   Myers,   Professor  of 
Ancient    History,    Oxford. 

ROME  ^  . 

By  W.  Warde  Fowler,  author 
oi  Social  Life  in  Rome. 

THE  GROWTH  OF  EUROPE 
By  Grenville  Cole. 

MEDIEVAL  EUROPE 

By  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  Fellow  at 
Balliol    College,    Oxford. 

THE     HISTORY      OF     ENG- 
LAND 
By   A.   F.    Pollard,    Professor 

Cloth  bound,  good  paper,  clear  type,  256  pages 

per.  volume,   bibhograph.es     indices    also   maps 


or  illustrations   where   needed, 
and  sold   separately. 


Each  complete 


/  L  net.  p« 

i  %J\^»     Volume 


HENRY     HOLT     AND     COMPANY 


PUBLISHERS 


NEW  YORK 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  SERIES 

Under  the  editorship  of  Charles  H.  Haskins,  Professor  ot 
History  in  Harvard  University. 

A  series  of  text-books  intended,  like  the  American  Science 
Series,  to  be  comprehensive,  systematic,  and  authoritative. 
The  series  will  aim  to  justify  the  title  "American"  not  only 
by  its  American  authorship  but  also  by  specifically  regarding 
American  educational  needs. 

The  treatment  will  be  descriptive  as  well  as  narrative,  and 
due  attention  will  be  given  to  economic  and  social  conditions 
and  to  institutional  development. 

Ready 

Europe  Since  1815 

ByCHARLES  D.  Hazen,  Professor  in  Columbia  University,   tichool 

Edition,  $3.00.     Library  Edition,  $3.75. 

Modern  European  History. 

By  Charles  D.  Hazeh.    $1.75. 

Historical  Atlas. 

By  William   R.  Shepherd,  Professor  in  Columbia  University, 

92.30. 

Atlas  of  Ancient  History. 

By  William  R.  Shepherd.  90  cents. 

American  Diplomacy. 

By  Carl  Russell  Fish,  Professor  in  the  University  of  Wisconsin 
School  Edition,  $2.50.     Library  Edition,  $3  oo. 

History  of  England. 

By  L.  M.  Larson,  Professor  in  the  University  of  Illinois.       $x.so. 

In  preparation 

Medieval  and  Modern  Europe. 

By  CHARLES  W.  Colby,  Prof«ssor  in  McGill  University. 
The  Reformation. 

By  Preserved  Smith. 

The  Renaissance. 

By  Ferdinand  Schevill,  Professor  in  the  University  of  Chicago. 
Europe  in  the  XVH.  and  XVHI.  Centuries. 

By  Sidney  B.  Fay,  Professor  in  Smith  College. 

History  of  Greece. 

By  Paul  Shorey,  Professor  in  the  University  of  Chicago. 
History  of  Rome. 

By  Jesse  B.  Carter,  Director  of  the  American  School  of  Clas- 
sical Studies  at  Rome. 

History  of  Germany. 

By  Guy  Stanton  Ford,  Professor  in  the  University  of  Minnesota. 
History  of  the  United  States. 

By  Frederick  J.  Turner,  Professor  in  Harvard  University. 


HENRY      HOLT      AND      COMPANY 

PoBUSMMi  New  Yo« 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  AT  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


APR  1  8  1938 
'^  1939 


"^^^^)m 


^*^'« 


JUL    Si 


AUG  1  31949 

Form  L-9-20m-8,'37 


1  0  19S4 
RECO  MLO 


iEtTD  05 


mi 


JAN  6     IS 


&FEB15 

BECO  LO 


1919 


RENEWAL 
LD  URL 


Mm 


jp     I^ECT)  LD-URi: 

WAR  2  .^  15180 


71 


1979 


3  1158  00430  7269 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  804  286    3 


